COMMENTARY
INTERVIEWS
SPECIALS
CHAT
ARCHIVES

Tata group denies browbeating greens over car emissions

This refers to the recent column by Darryl D'Monte on issues regarding the Supreme Court’s decision on car emission norms.

In the column, he has made a reference to Telco's decision to serve a legal notice on Business Standard and on Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain of the Centre for Science and Environment over their column in the paper.

D'Monte spoke to a Telco representative, who explained, at length, the company viewpoint behind the legal notice.

It is unfortunate that we were not able to convince D'Monte of the perspective behind our decision.

D'Monte's conclusions -- that by serving the legal notice the Tatas had “bared their fangs” and that this was an attempt to “browbeat environmentalists” -- are strikingly similar to the interpretation given to the legal notice Sunita Narain at a press conference in Delhi. The facts are as follows:

The column of Agarwal and Sunita Narain, published on March 16, was about diesel emissions allegedly being toxic to public health. The article was headlined Engines of the Devil and just below the headline was a photograph of two Tata vehicles, the Sumo and the Sierra. The photograph showed a back view of the vehicles, but the 'Sierra' was visible. The photograph’s caption was Exhaust matters.

The article did not mention Tata vehicles but was entirely about the alleged polluting effect of diesel. Telco was convinced, however, that the article was defamatory considering that the only photograph that accompanied it was of its vehicles, and that the photograph appeared just below the headline Engines of the Devil. All this was calculated, in Telco's view, to project the company and its products in a poor light.

To anyone who glanced at the article, in which the photograph and the headline were conspicuous, the impression that it left was that Telco's vehicles were the 'Engines of the Devil' and even that without regard for public health, Telco continues to manufacture such vehicles. This impression, in Telco's view, was not only unwarranted and erroneous but also libelous.

Aggrieved and hurt, Telco, in consultation with its legal advisors, served a notice of defamation on the publisher, editor and printer of Business Standard and the authors, namely Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain.

In any defamation notice, as is the legal practice, the notice has not only to be served on the publisher and editor but also on the writers of the article. Does this amount to a faux pas by Telco as D'Monte has portrayed it?

Agarwal and Narain replied to the notice stating, among other things, that they only wrote the article and had nothing to do with the headline or the photograph. Since this explanation was reasonable and an adequate defence for the authors, Telco's solicitors wrote back to Agarwal and Narain stating that the matter was closed as far as they are concerned. Does this sound like Telco trying to 'browbeat environmentalists' or going on the 'war path'?

D'Monte also mentions the Rs 1 billion damages sought by Telco in a tone of incredulity. Telco's annual sales have been in the region of Rs 60 billion to Rs 100 billion in the last three years. In the light of these figures, if Telco assessed the possible loss to its reputation, because of the column, at Rs 1 billion, was that really too much? Let the readers judge.

Malati Puranik Deputy Director
Corporate Affairs
The Tata Group of Companies

Business News