904-NMS-1220-15-F4.DOC public funds then at least of an undeniable public trust. This demands, I think, the most complete transparency, accountability and openness in its actions, dealing and operations. I include in this its duty to respond in a measured fashion to a question that has been placed in a measured fashion. It has no duty to respond to a wild or reckless allegation. But when a person, having made some enquiries, and herself having something of an established track record, makes a politely worded and pointed enquiry, not to respond to it seems to me either to be an example of the most egregious hubris and arrogance or, alternatively, an admission that there is an element of truth in what was being said. There is no third alternative. 21. In his written submissions, Mr. Basu makes this telling point: that despite the articles of which it complains, the NSE has suffered no loss or damage at all. He produces some documents that prima facie so indicate.13 It is one thing to contend that damage must be presumed if defamation be shown; but where it is affirmatively shown that no damage has resulted, then I do not see how any case in ‘defamation’ can be said to have been made out. After all, at the heart of defamation lies denigration, the lowering of the plaintiff in the public estimation. 22. Mr. Basu has also done some quite formidable legal research. The point he makes is this: that there is a material difference when the complainant plaintiff is a public persona or figure or institution, as the NSE undoubtedly is, as opposed to a private citizen. He cites, of course, the classic decision in New York Times Co. v 13 Exhibits “A” and “A-1” to Mr. Basu’s compilation. 21 of 30 ::: Uploaded on - 10/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2020 18:08:37 :::