Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri – Plaintiff
Versus
Saket Gokhale – Defendant
I.A. No. 7944 of 2021 in C.S. (OS) No. 300 of 2021
Decided On : 13-07-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Maninder Singh, Ms. Meghna Mishra, Mr. Dheeraj P. Deo, Mr. Tarun Sharma, Mr. Prabhas Bajaj.
For the Defendant : Mr. Sarim Naved.
Point of Law: Defamatory tweet - Deletion of - loss and prejudice that the plaintiff is likely to suffer, as a consequence of the thoughtless tweets of the defendant, cannot be compensated in monetary terms.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Defamatory tweet - Public servant - Ambassador level posts - seeking a mandatory injunction against the defendant, to immediately take down/delete the Tweets directed against the plaintiff, the URLs of which have been provided in the plaint, as well as all other similar Tweets, with a further restraint, against the defendant, from publishing any further Tweets levelling false allegations against the plaintiff or her family members. The plaintiff also seeks an apology from the Defendant, along with damages to the tune of 15 crores, to be deposited in the PM CARES fund.
Finding of the Court:
Given the number of false representations contained in the tweets of the defendant, directed against the plaintiff, despite the defendant being aware of the misrepresentation of the facts of the case, coupled with the continued damage to her reputation which such representations could cause to a person like the plaintiff who is the recipient of such false imputations, this is a case which, in my opinion, requires immediate peremptory orders, without awaiting a formal response from the defendant. The loss and prejudice that the plaintiff is likely to suffer, as a consequence of the thoughtless tweets of the defendant, cannot be compensated in monetary terms - defendant is directed to immediately delete, from his Twitter account, all Tweets against the plaintiff, to which the present plaint makes reference, as well as all connected Tweets which may form part of the trail of Tweets by the defendant against the plaintiff.
Result: Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
I.A. No. 7944/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908)
1. Having secured the second rank at the All India Civil Services Examination, the plaintiff joined the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) in 1974. She served as Ambassador to Hungary as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina. From 1993 to 1999, she was Joint Secretary, Economic Division and Multilateral Economic Relations. In 2002, she joined the United Nations as the Director of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). From 2007 to 2009, she served as Acting Deputy Secretary-General of UNCTAD. From 2009 to 2011, she was Director of the UN Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States in New York. In 2011, she was appointed Assistant Secretary-General of the UN, prior whereto she took voluntary retirement from the IFS. She also served as Deputy Executive Director of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women (UN WOMEN), from 2011. Prior to her 15 years’ stint at the UN, therefore, the plaintiff served as an Indian diplomat for 28 years. She demitted public service in February, 2018.
2. The plaintiff’s husband, too, was an IFS officer of the 1974 batch, who served at Ambassador level posts from 1999 to 2013. Prior thereto, he worked with the UN Development Program (UNDP) from 1988 to 1991. From 2002 to 2005, he served as the Permanent Representative of India to the UN in Geneva and, thereafter, at New York from 2009 to 2013. He also served as Chairman of the Research and Information System for Developing Countries, an autonomous think tank under the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. He has been a Union Minister under the present Government since September, 2017, having won two elections.
3. By any reckoning, therefore, the plaintiff and her husband, have been distinguished public servants.
The purchase of the Swiss apartment
4. During her tenure with the UNCTAD in Geneva, the plaintiff decided to purchase Apartment No. 4A, Residence Prevert, Chemin des Couleuvres, 1295, Tannay, Switzerland (“the Swiss Apartment” hereafter). The price of the apartment was Swiss Francs (CHF) 1.6 million. Of this amount, the plaintiff borrowed CHF 1 million from the UBS Bank, Geneva against mortgage of the property, which is still being serviced. Documents, evidencing financing, by the UBS Bank, of CHF 1 million, in two tranches of CHF 500,000 each, have been placed on record, disclosing the plaintiff as the “borrower.” The remaining consideration, for purchase of the Apartment, of CHF 600,000 was lent, to the plaintiff, by her daughter (who was a Senior Executive in a Bank in New York) in two tranches. Documents, relating to Credit Advices issued by the Bank of the plaintiff evidencing receipt of money on 9th December, 2004 of CHF 199,334 and on 11th March, 2005 of CHF 506,000, from her daughter have been placed on record. The plaintiff’s husband was, at the time, also posted at Geneva (since 2002) as the Ambassador, Permanent Mission of India and, between the plaintiff and her husband, they were earning approximately US $ 290,000 per annum. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff has taken me, painstakingly, through these documents and, prima-facie, the transactions appear to be perfectly legitimate.
Disclosures by the plaintiff and her husband
5. On 17th May, 2005, the plaintiff wrote to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), intimating the acquisition, by her, of the Swiss apartment, in the prescribed pro forma. The purchase price of the property was disclosed as CHF 1.6 million, and the source of funding was also disclosed as CHF 1 million having been sourced through bank loans against mortgage of the property and CHF 600,000 having been provided by her daughter.
6. The plaintiff’s husband contested elections twice. On each occasion, the requisite affidavit, as required, was
