ईटीवी भारत के लीगल नोटिस का भड़ास4मीडिया ने दिया जवाब

1/8/2020

To,
Mr GVS Jagannada Rao,
Advocate,
22, Bhaskara Apartments,
Rajbhawan Road,
Smaijuguda,
Hyderabad-500082.

Sub: Reply to your legal notice dated 28th July, 2020 addressed to my client Mr Yashwant Singh, owner of the webportal www.bhadash4media.com.

Sir,

My client has placed before me the legal notice referred above and has also instructed me to reply the same with true facts. Under the instructions of my client named above, I am issuing the reply to the aforesaid legal notice issued by you on behalf of your clients ETV Bharat & several others named therein.

A simple reading of your notice reflects that your client has not given you the true facts hence the legal notice issued by you is based on unfounded and false facts. The said notice is thus liable to be withdrawn on this ground itself bereft of any valid and true content.

Furthermore, you have cleverly picked up only part of the said news item published by my client and issued the notice after concealing the remaining part of the news item. A complete reading of the said news item would show that my client has published the news related to spread of the pandemic COVID-19 in the establishment of your client which is no words can be defamatory or malicious as being alleged and termed by you.

I would like to bring to your notice that my client runs the news portal www.bhadash4media.com which is publishing news items related to media and its employees. My client is widely acclaimed web portal with highest visits and viewership in Hindi news portal. My client has performed his professional duties of reporting the news related to COVID-19 pandemic, in compliance of the provisions of the National Disaster Management Act, 2005. There is no irregularity in the said news, neither the said news item is defamatory or derogatory in any manner. My client has duly done the pre publication verification of the news item as it was reported to him by the employees of your establishment. Your notice is thus based on unfounded facts hence liable to be withdrawn.

PARA WISE REPLY TO YOUR NOTICE:

1. Para of your notice is mere recital hence no reply however, your client is trying to raise storm in tea cup against a news item which is true.
2. Para calls no reply being narration only. It would be worthwhile to mention that my client runs the portal www.bhadash4media.com which is a news portal publishing news related to media and its employees. My client is well acclaimed and oldest Hindi web portal with highest viewership in Hindi. My client is diligently performing his professional duties of reporting the news related to COVID-19 pandemic, in accordance with the provisions of the National Disaster Management Act, 2005. He has also received wide acclamation for his outstanding work and has received number of awards.
3. Para of your notice is bald, vague hence denied. It is denied that the news item is false.
4. Para is denied. The content of the para is baseless and false. It seems that you at the behest of your client are trying to interpolate the contents of the news item with some ulterior motives. It is specifically denied that the said news item is defamatory, containing many insinuations, innuendos, half-truths and misrepresentations. It is specifically denied that any imputation much less defamatory imputation has been made vide the said news item by my client. It is denied that the said news item was false and published without verifying the truth. As stated above, the pre-publication verification was done by my client after the aforesaid facts were reported by employees of your establishment. My client still retains several messages and communications on the basis of which the said news item was published after verification as well.
5. Para of your notice is simply interpolation of a news item. The factum that the officials named in the news item were suffering from COVID-19 is a matter of record and as per the notification of the Government of India and medical protocol issued by the Ministry of Health, the employees should have been isolated but you choose to force the employees to report to their work forcibly which fact was reported by many employees hence published being a news of media.
6. Sub para wise reply is as under:

i) The fact is reported widely to the knowledge of the common man hence the website of my client published the same as a part of its duty keeping in mind the mandate of the National Disaster Management Act.

ii) The fact is reported widely to the knowledge of the common man hence the website of my client published the same as a part of its duty especially under the National Disaster Management Act. Your notice does not say that no one from the HR Department was suffering from COVID-19. It amounts to concealment of information which is prohibited under the NDM Act as well.

iii) The factum of the spread of COVID-19 inside your establishment was established after the testing of the concerned officials, hence the website of my client published the same as a part of its duty especially under the National Disaster Management Act. Your notice does not say that no one was suffering from COVID-19. It amounts to concealment of information which is prohibited under the NDM Act as well.

iv) The fact is reported to my client hence the website of my client published the same as a part of its duty especially under the National Disaster Management Act.

v) Para of your notice is false hence denied in toto. Your notice does not say that your client was not calling the employees to work from outstation. It amounts to concealment of information which is prohibited under the NDM Act as well. It is a matter of fact that communication was issued to several employees by your client to report for their duties immediately without observing the mandatory quarantine period after travelling which is also a violation of the NDM Act.

vi) The para of your notice is misleading and evasive hence denied. Your notice does not say that the said persons were not suffering from COVID-19. It amounts to concealment of information which is prohibited under the NDM Act as well. There is no character assassination as being alleged by you. The news was only intended for information and not defamatory or malicious by any means.

vii) Para of your notice is denied. Several employees have reported the fact that they are terrified and scared of the spread of COVID-19 inside your establishment. It is within the knowledge of your client that the employees were being forced to work despite there being cases of COVID-19 inside the establishment. Your client forced the employees to work under duress which was reported. It is specifically denied that any insulation or defamation was being done by my client.

7. Para of your notice is misleading; the facts stated in the news item are duly verified from the individuals working at the establishment then published. The infection of the persons inside the establishment is however admitted which fact was reported hence there is no irregularity in the matter. It is also a fact that your client has made all the arrangements for prevention only after the publication of the news item for which my client was appreciated widely. The site of my client being a news portal for the news related to media has done its duty diligently but reasons best known to your client, he is now behind my client.
8. Para under reply is not only self-condemning but also contradictory to your earlier assertions. The factum of infection of your employees is acknowledged by you. It was also reported that your client has not taken the due care of mandatory distancing prescribed during this period thereby resulting into large scale infection at the establishment. No preventive measures were taken, even the infected employees were not isolated and all employees working from home were forced to report for their duties thereby posing serious threats hence reported the matter to my client for publication of the news item. It was only after the publication of the news item by my client; your client has undertaken some cosmetic measures for safeguarding the further spread of the pandemic inside the establishment. You can share the purchase bills and proof of payments made to all the facilities at the establishment of your client to show the date of purchase which will let the cat out of the bag regarding the false claim of taking all precautions by your client since 20/3/2020.
9. Para of your notice under reply is denied being false. Several employees were forced to report to their duties immediately after travelling after you have withdrawn your work from home arrangement which lead to the outbreak of the pandemic inside the establishment of your client. The date of the blood tests with other details may be shared to show the dates which will show that your client is making false claims in this regard.
10. Para is false and in praise of your client but not true. You can share the purchase bills and proof of payments made to all the facilities at the establishment of your client to show the date of purchase which will let the cat out of the bag regarding the false claim of taking all precautions by your client since 20/3/2020.
11. Para is denied being concocted and false. It is specifically denied that any disrepute, harm , loss of reputation to your client has been caused in the eyes of general public as being claimed by you. It is also denied that your client has suffered any mental agony. It is clear that you at the behest of your client is fabricating fake grounds and claims with some sinister objectives.
12. Para of your notice is denied being false and vague. It is specifically denied that none of the statements, imputations are true. It is also denied that the contents of the news item are false, baseless and are purely a result of surmises, conjectures and fertile imaginations without even access to the office of your clients or to the facts. It is also denied that the said publication had the tendency of misleading and agonizing many families who are related to 1323 employees working for your client No.1, causing them mental agony and trauma, worrying about the safety and wellbeing of their ward working for your client No.1. It is also false that your client is deeply hurt by the so called insinuations made by my client for which my client is jointly or severally liable. It is specifically denied that my client has committed the offense of Section 500 of the IPC hence liable to tortuous act resulting to penalty.
13. The para of your notice is frivolous and misplaced; it is specifically denied that my client has committed any irregularity hence liable to publish any unconditional apology on his website and also to pay any compensation being extorted by your client under the threat of this legal notice.

Please take note that my client has performed his professional work of reporting the outbreak of COVID-19 in the establishment of your client as a solemn duty for which your client can not claim any irregularity based on false, wrong and fabricated facts.

You are therefore requested to withdraw the legal notice under reply under intimation to my client.

Thanking you,

Yours
Umesh Sharma
Advocate
Delhi

मूल खबर-

ईटीवी भारत ने भड़ास4मीडिया को लीगल नोटिस भेजा, देखें कितना मांगा हर्जाना