The main legal point established is the duty of an intermediary to remove unlawful content and disclose the identity of the person involved, as well as the jurisdiction over a foreign defendant and the authority to block a website for posing a threat to public order.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. Issue notice for the date fixed.

2. The Plaintiff claims that he is a highly revered spiritual guide, renowned worldwide for his spiritual discourses as “Nirmal baba”. He is known for his spiritual teachings and healing powers and he regularly conducts assemblies across India called „Samagams wherein, he interacts with his followers and offers spiritual guidance. His preachings are telecasted by over 30 television channels on a daily basis including Sony TV and Aajtak, SAB and IBN7. He claims that he has lakhs of followers in India and abroad and plaintiffs website www.nirmalbaba.com is visited by over one million followers in a month. Hence, he is a person with considerable reputation to protect.

3. The defendant No.1 is a hubber which means a person or entity that is registered as a writer who writes articles on any topic on the defendant No.2s website, www.hubpages.com where defendant No.2 provides web space and technology to publish the content written by a hubber.

4. There is a commercial arrangement of earning on the website between every hubber including defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 through online advertising. Defendant No.2 states clearly on its websites Frequently asked questions under the heading “Making Money on Hubpages”, that money is earned through online advertising (Google AdSense and the HubPages Ad Program) and/or affiliate referrals (displayed in the form of Amazon and eBay Capsules). Each time a visitor views one of the Hubs, the website of defendant No.2 displays ads. According to the plaintiff, 60% of the time, these ads can generate revenue for hubber, and 40% of the time, the ads can generate revenue for the defendant No.2 if a hubber has registered for the program.

5. Defendant No.1 is registered as a hubber on defendant No.2s website using the name “ Indijobs”. Defendant No.1 has written many articles on the website with a view to generate webtraffic leading to earnings for itself through online advertising programs including Google Adsense. As per the case of the plaintiff, recently it came to his notice that defendant No.1 has deliberately written defamatory articles about the plaintiff on the website with malafide intent of attracting followers of the plaintiff on the website and making unlawful earnings through online advertising, thereby, causing serious damage to the reputation of the plaintiff.

6. As per the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 has written a false and defamatory article about plaintiff which, the defendant No.2 has published and the same is titled “Is Nirmal Baba a Fraud?” at http://indijobs.hubpages.com/hub/Is-Nirmal-Baba-a-Fraud,. In the said article defendants No.1 and 2 have made false statements about the plaintiff that he is “a suspicious guru” and have made false and derogatory imputations by alleging that plaintiff uses „Vashikaran mantra’, that is black magic, tantric powers in the following words –“He is quite confident about his vashikaran mantra by which he can control the thinking power of anyone on this planet.”..” He looks like a fraudster masquerading as a spiritual guru.”

7. Plaintiff also avers that defendants No.1 and 2 further defamed the plaintiff by falsely stating “Though, Nirmal Baba is no more offering vashikaran mantra, but it is a fact that his popularity rose because of this. But, the question remains. How come a mantra can control someone? It is not mantra, in fact, but it is his psychological tricks which controls someone. He do know and apply hypnotism”. They have accused plaintiff of cheating his followers by stating “He is only earning money from gullible people”.

8. As per the plaintiff, these statements have not only caused injury to his reputation, but also deeply enraged the sentiments of his followers and made a mockery of his teachings.

9. The plaintiff has filed few more articles, also written by the defendant No.1 and published by defendant No.2 which per se contain derogatory remarks and statements agains