904-NMS-1220-15-F4.DOC to the note and to the Affidavit in Reply filed by Defendants Nos. 2 and 3.12 19. What of the “duty” that Wadia J alluded to, and what of the material that is required to be placed to substantiate justification? As a responsible journalist, one who is not some sensationalist muck-raker, Ms. Dalal certainly had and has a duty to the common investor, the everyday trader. That is her social and moral duty. But she also has a perhaps more profound ethical duty, and that is to take all possible steps to ascertain her position before she goes to press. Had she not sought the NSE’s views, and merely accepted as gospel what the anonymous communication to her said, matters might be very different indeed. But she did abide by that ethical standard. She did her investigations, and she did first solicit the NSE’s response. Had there been a response, of the nature now suggested, or something in that vein, I imagine she would have followed this up with further investigations and correspondence before committing herself. I do not see how it can possibly be open to the NSE to accuse her of a lapse in ethical and journalistic standards when, despite the opportunity, it chose not to respond. Was Ms. Dalal supposed to imagine and speculate what that response might be? I find it exceedingly odd, too, that despite having received these communications, the NSE does not even mention them in the plaint. It gives instead the impression that Ms. Dalal acted immediately and solely on the anonymous letter and rushed to print. Nothing could be further from the truth. The elision of that correspondence from the plaint is neither irrelevant nor minor. Today, once the Affidavits in Reply are in, the plaint 12 Exhibits “J” and “K” to Mr. Basu’s compilation. 19 of 30 ::: Uploaded on - 10/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2020 18:08:37 :::