Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Sasikala Pushpa - Appellant
Versus
Facebook India & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Suit (O S) No. 510 of 2016
Decided On : 02-06-2020
SUIT FOR INJUNCTION - DEFAMATORY MATERIAL - UPLOADED ON SOCIAL MEDIA - RIGHT TO PRIVACY - FREEDOM OF PRESS - SECTION 79 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 - EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY OF INTERMEDIARY - REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 19(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - BALANCE BETWEEN RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a sitting Member of Rajya Sabha, filed a suit against Facebook Inc., Google LLC, YouTube LLC, Union of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and Union of India, Department of Telecommunications, seeking permanent injunction restraining not only the defendants but other persons from publishing, broadcasting, distributing or disseminating in any form whatsoever any defamatory material relating to the plaintiff and mandatory injunction directing the defendants and all others to remove/delete the false, concocted and fabricated photographs/videos/audio messages or any other material aforesaid. The defendants filed written statements, pleading that they are intermediaries as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and are omitted from any liability arising from third party content posted to the Facebook Services as per Section 79 of the IT Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plaintiff failed to make out a case for putting her claim, of the impugned photographs being morphed, forged and fabricated, to trial. The Court also held that the plaintiff's alternative plea that, even if the photographs are genuine, the plaintiff is entitled to removal thereof for the reason of the same being defamatory, also fails. The Court further held that the public interest in knowing the meeting of the plaintiff at her residence with a man belonging to a rival political party far outweigh the private interest of the plaintiff of keeping the same hidden from public eyes.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is entitled to be put to trial on the plea of the plaintiff, of the four photographs aforesaid, as well as other photographs verbally argued to have been put on the internet, being not genuine and being morphed, forged and fabricated? 2. If the above question is answered in favour of the plaintiff, whether the claim of the plaintiff against the defendants, for removal of the said photographs from the internet and/or for blocking of the access to the said photographs is required to be put to trial.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to make out a case for putting her claim, of the impugned photographs being morphed, forged and fabricated, to trial. The Court observed that the plaintiff's pleas were vague and without the requisite particulars. The Court also noted that the plaintiff had not filed any expert opinion to prove that the photographs were morphed. 2. The Court held that the plaintiff's alternative plea that, even if the photographs are genuine, the plaintiff is entitled to removal thereof for the reason of the same being defamatory, also fails. The Court observed that the photographs were not per se defamatory and that the plaintiff had not pleaded any special law or principles to be applied qua defamation through the medium of internet.
Final Decision: The suit was dismissed with costs payable equally to Facebook Inc. on the one hand and Google LLC and YouTube LLC together on the other hand, of Rs.2 lacs each.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The plaintiff, a sitting Member of Parliament, filed a suit against social media platforms and government agencies seeking removal of allegedly defamatory material and injunctions to prevent further dissemination. The suit was initiated due to circulation of photographs and videos purportedly showing the plaintiff in a private setting with a man, which the plaintiff claimed were morphed, forged, or fabricated (!) (!) .
The court observed that the plaintiff failed to substantiate her claim that the photographs were morphed or fabricated, citing vagueness in pleadings, lack of expert evidence, and absence of necessary parties involved in the alleged act of morphing. The court found that the plea of forgery or morphing was not sufficiently pleaded or proved, and thus, the issue was not fit to be put to trial (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court also noted that even if the photographs were genuine, the plaintiff's claim for their removal on the grounds of defamation was weak, as the photographs did not per se constitute defamatory content. The court emphasized that the photographs did not reveal obscene or scandalous material and that the context did not demonstrate a violation of privacy or defamation sufficient to warrant removal or blocking (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the suit was filed in Delhi, despite the plaintiff's primary reputation being in Tamil Nadu, and suggested that this might have been an attempt to avoid local publicity. It also observed that the photographs in question did not involve private or confidential information and that the plaintiff, as a public figure and politician, had a reduced expectation of privacy regarding her public and political activities (!) (!) (!) .
The court stressed the importance of balancing the right to privacy with the public’s right to know, especially concerning public figures. It recognized that the public interest in a politician’s conduct, including meetings with individuals from rival political parties, can outweigh private interests, particularly when such information pertains to their official role and public responsibilities (!) (!) (!) .
The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims did not establish a legal basis for removing the photographs or blocking access to them. The suit was dismissed with costs, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a cause of action that warrants interference with the content on social media platforms (!) .
Overall, the case underscores the necessity of clear pleadings, proper parties, and concrete evidence when seeking relief related to online content, especially in matters involving allegations of defamation, privacy violation, or morphing of images. It also emphasizes that courts will weigh public interest against individual privacy rights in such cases.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - This suit, though instituted on 29th September, 2016, as existing now vide amended plaint dated 30th October, 2018, has been instituted against (i) Facebook Inc., (ii) Google LLC, (iii) YouTube LLC, (iv) Union of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and (v) Union of India, Department of Telecommunications, for (a) permanent injunction restraining not only the defendants but other persons from publishing, broadcasting, distributing or disseminating in any form whatsoever any defamatory material "including the purported photographs/video/audio messages referred to in the plaint, relating to or arising from, in connection with any alleged acts or behavior relatable to the plaintiff; and, (b) mandatory injunction directing the defendants and all others to remove/delete the false, concocted and fabricated photographs/videos/audio messages or any other material aforesaid.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff in the amended plaint aforesaid, (i) that the plaintiff is a sitting Member of Rajya Sabha, having been nominated in the year 2014 by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) Party; (ii) that the plaintiff in the year 2011, after winning the Local Body Elections was elected as the Mayor of Toothukudi; (iii) that the plaintiff was also the Secretary of Women Wing of AIADMK Party; (iv) that on the plaintiff on 1st August, 2016 informing the Parliament that she had been slapped by a leader of AIADMK Party at Chennai and was facing death threats, she was expelled from AIADMK Party and on the same day her ancestral house in Uvari village in Tamil Nadu was attacked; (v) that a false complaint dated 8th August, 2016 was also filed by one Ms. Banumati wife of late Karupasamy against the plaintiff and her family; (vi) that Union of India exercises regulatory control over the print, electronic and internet media of the country and have been arrayed as necessary parties to the present suit to enable this Court to do comprehensive adjudication and pass necessary directions; (vii) that the plaintiff was continuously receiving threats and baseless and false allegations were being made against the plaintiff; one of such threat was of distribution of photographs and video on social media defaming and embarrassing the plaintiff; (viii) that the persons threatening the plaintiff wanted the plaintiff to resign from her constitutional post; (ix) that the plaintiff has learnt that few unknown persons have uploaded the plaintiff''s photograph/video which is being circulated through the social media i.e. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and WhatsApp; the list of URLs at which the said photographs were being circulated is set out in the plaint; (x) that on 25th September, 2016, the plaintiff started receiving phone calls from her friends, acquaintances and family members, of the photographs of the plaintiff having been uploaded on the social media; (xi) that the said photographs tarnish the image of the plaintiff; (xii) that such photographs/videos which are being circulated, do not exist and have been morphed, fabricated, concocted and forged; (xiii) in paragraph 13 that,
"It is respectfully submitted that while completely denying the veracity of the purported photograph/video/audio messages purely as a theoretical surmise even if any photograph/video were to depict in whole or part is a private act such as consensual act does not in any manner become culpable. Further, such a photograph/video would raise no public interest issue. Publicity to the content of such a photograph/video would only be for sensational and salacious purpose and would amount to a gross and irreparable violation of an individual''s privacy and it would be per se defamatory "
(xiv) that no attempt of any verification of the allegations or the authenticity of the alleged photograph/video/audio messages was undertaken before uploading on the social media; (xv) that uploading of such alleged photographs/videos/audio messages constitutes
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
