The judgment establishes the need to balance freedom of speech with the right to privacy, recognizing the constitutional protection of the right to privacy and granting injunctive relief against specific defendants for per se defamatory statements and impermissible intrusion into the plaintiff's privacy.

JUDGMENT

G.S.PATEL,J. - This is an ad-interim application for urgent injunctive relief in an action for damages and injunctions in defamation. The Plaintiff, 30th July 2021 Ms Shilpa Shetty, is a well-known actor. She has had a long career in media, film, fashion and, for some time, in the Indian Premier League of T20 cricket. She is married to Mr Raj Kundra, a businessman with varied enterprises and ventures. Recently, Mr Kundra stands accused in certain criminal proceedings. Those criminal cases or proceedings are of no concern to me today, except to the limited extent that, as Mr Kundra's spouse, those allegations and accusations are, or so Ms Shetty says, sought to be applied in a defamatory manner to her.

2. Dr Saraf and Dr Chandrachud who appear for Ms Shetty make it abundantly clear that it is not their application that there should be pre-censorship or a gagging of the media. What they do point out is that there are at least some commentaries that have appeared recently in various publications, attributable to different source, that are per se defamatory. These cannot be said to be protected as fair reportage. In one or two instances, they also submit that these comments are a legally impermissible transgression of Ms Shetty's constitutionally protected right to privacy.

3. Ms Shetty's plaint complains of several commentaries that appeared after Mr Kundra's recent troubles began. She says these are all defamatory. These commentaries are in print or in video. They are attributed to different parties.

4. There are 29 defendants to the suit. The 29th Defendant is a 'John Doe / Ashok Kumar' entity, name and address unknown. An injunctive order in a defamation action cannot, I imagine, be made against an unknown party. Among the others, there are some publications and some individuals said to be associated with those publications. Some of these Defendants include the Free Press Journal (Defendant No. 11), NDTV (wrongly described in the name against Defendant No. 13), and some other enterprises such as Defendant No. 2 (peepingmoon.com).

5. Then there are some individuals who have media accounts of their own (i.e., as individuals, not news outlets).

6. Defendants Nos. 22, 23, 25, 27 and 28 are, respectively, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and Google. Dr Saraf and Dr Chandrachud also do not suggest that these entities are required in law to engage in any censoring or editorial activity beyond ensuring a compliance with their own terms of service.

7. What Dr Saraf and Dr Chandrachud do point out, however, is that there are at least some statements that have appeared online -- specifically those by Defendant No. 17, Defendant 19 and Defendant No. 20 -- which are (a) per se defamatory; (b) admit of no tenable defence; and (c) cannot in any sense be said to be justified.

8. Defendant No. 17 is a TV channel apparently in Uttar Pradesh. Defendant No. 19 says she is an online journalist. She also claims to be a friend of Ms Shetty, though that now may be a thing of the past. Defendant No. 20 is an individual who has a personal YouTube account.

9. Some of the issues this suit raises will require a closer scrutiny at a later date. It is not possible to say at this prima facie stage that all the statements by all the Defendants are of the same defamatory character. Dr Saraf has, on instructions, presently restricted his application for urgent ad-interim relief to two or three cases. But this is not to be construed to mean that I have rejected his application in regard to the others, nor to mean that he has conceded that he has no case against the others.

10. Defendant No. 17 uploaded a video. A translation of the transcript is at pages 169-171. Dr Saraf complains about the initial portion where a set of rhetorical questions are posed, including whether Ms Shetty had merely put up a pretence of being upset during one particular incident. That set of three questions is phrased in such a manner that the answer to any one could only b