## Facts

- A New York-based publisher and wire service transmitted a report stating that Swiss authorities had frozen an account allegedly belonging to Ajitabh Bachchan, linked to commissions connected to the Bofors arms-contract scandal.
- The story was authored abroad, transmitted to a news service in India, and republished in Indian newspapers; copies circulated in the United Kingdom.
- The publisher also ran the story in its New York newspaper, with related distribution in the United Kingdom through an affiliated entity.
- Shortly after the story ran, the wire service transmitted Bachchan’s denial that he or his family held the account or had any connection to the Bofors contract.
- Bachchan sued in London for defamation and obtained a money judgment against the New York publisher and a reporter, including damages and attorney’s fees.
- Bachchan then sought recognition and enforcement of the English money judgment in New York by moving for summary judgment in lieu of complaint under CPLR 5303.

## Issues

1. Whether New York should recognize and enforce a foreign defamation money judgment when the foreign proceeding applied standards that conflict with U.S. and New York constitutional protections for speech and press.
2. Whether enforcement should be denied under CPLR article 53’s public-policy exception because the foreign law placed the burden of proving truth on the defendant and did not require a constitutionally adequate showing of fault in speech on matters of public concern.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to enforce the foreign judgment and declined recognition.
- The court held that enforcement would be repugnant to New York public policy grounded in the First Amendment and the New York Constitution.
- The court emphasized that the reporting concerned allegations of political corruption and government contracting, placing the speech within matters of public concern.
- The court concluded that enforcing a judgment rendered under materially different defamation standards would chill reporting by the American press on international events.

## Legal Principles

- Foreign-country money judgments are generally recognized under CPLR article 53, but recognition may be denied when enforcement would be repugnant to New York public policy.
- New York public policy in defamation cases reflects constitutional limits requiring meaningful protection for speech on matters of public concern.
- In such cases, U.S. defamation law generally requires the plaintiff to bear the burden of proving falsity and to prove at least a constitutionally sufficient level of fault, and it disfavors strict liability.
- A foreign defamation judgment based on a regime that shifts the truth burden to the defendant and lacks a comparable fault requirement may be refused recognition because enforcement would functionally evade domestic constitutional protections.

## Conclusion

New York refused to enforce an English libel judgment because the foreign defamation standards—especially the defendant’s burden to prove truth and the absence of constitutionally comparable fault protections for speech on a matter of public concern—conflicted with New York’s public policy of protecting free expression and would chill press reporting if executed in New York courts.


Bachchan v. India Abroad Publ’ns Inc., 154 Misc. 2d 228, 585 N.Y.S.2d 661 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1992)