In a decisive move, the Supreme Court has ordered Firoz Bakht Ahmed, former chancellor of Maulana Azad National Urdu University, to issue an unconditional apology to Professor Ehtesham Ahmad Khan for defamatory remarks. Ahmed had publicly labeled Khan, the Head of the Media Centre of Journalism, as a “sexual predator,” sparking a prolonged legal conflict.
The bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai and P K Mishra, mandated that Ahmed’s apology be published in bold letters on the front page of the “Daily Eenadu” newspaper within four weeks. This directive seeks to formally retract the defamatory statement and address the damage caused to Khan’s reputation.
“Since now the appellant has realized his mistake and is willing to tender an unconditional apology, we find that it will be in the interest of both the parties to put an end to the criminal proceedings as well as other proceedings pending between them,” the bench noted in their October 14 order.
In addition to the public apology, Ahmed has been instructed to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for the mental distress and agony caused to Khan by the allegations. The court specified that this amount should be paid via Demand Draft to Professor Khan within the same four-week period.
During the court proceedings, Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, representing Ahmed, argued that the defamatory statement was made during an emotional outburst and was not intended to malign Khan’s professional reputation. In contrast, Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, representing Khan, contended that Ahmed made the allegations fully aware of their potential impact and argued against leniency.
The controversy originated from a media interaction where Ahmed used the damaging term against Khan following an incident where Khan had been cleared of previous sexual harassment allegations. The legal battle continued despite the clearance, leading to intense scrutiny and court action.
The Telangana High Court earlier declined to quash the proceedings against Ahmed, and the Supreme Court’s ruling now concludes the legal dispute while upholding the need for accountability in public statements.
