The right to approach the Court for injunction and damages must be based on the disclosure of infringement of a legal right. Offense or grievance by the contents of a book does not automatically confer such a right.

Headnote:
Freedom of Speech and Expression - Religion - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1)(a) - Muhammad - [Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of India, 1950]
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff seeks injunction and damages against Defendant No. 1 for derogatory remarks against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the religion of Islam. Plaintiff claims to represent the Shia community and religious followers of Islam.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the suit was not maintainable as it did not disclose infringement of any legal right. The Court did not examine the merits of the impugned book and emphasized the Plaintiff's right to exercise all legal remedies.
Issues: Maintainability of the suit under the right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and religious sentiments.
Ratio Decidendi: The Plaintiff's claim of being offended or aggrieved by the contents of the book did not give him the right to approach the Court. The suit lacked foundation and did not fall within the purview of the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Final Decision: The plaint was rejected as not maintainable. The Court did not examine the contents of the impugned book and consigned the file to the record room.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. - Aggrieved with an online self-publication titled "Muhammad", purportedly authored by Defendant No.1, Plaintiff has approached this Court seeking orders restraining Defendant No. 1 from making derogatory, demeaning and incendiary statements against the religion of Islam, the Holy Quran and Prophet Mohammed and other revered personages. The suit contains following prayers:

"a) Pass a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendant No. 1, thereby restraining the Defendant No. 1 from making statements and / or publishing remarks that are lascivious, prurient derogatory and hurtful, against the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the religion of Islam, its followers, its tenets and/or against the Holy Qur'an;

b) Pass a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendant No. 1, thereby restraining the Defendant No. 1 from selling, letting to hire, distributing, publicly exhibiting, or in any manner putting into circulation for the purpose of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition, circulation and/or promotion, copies of the book titled Muhammad in any way and through any medium, including but not limited to the form of a paperback, hardcover, or any other print media as well as in the form of digital media in any way;

c) Pass a decree against the Defendant No. 1 directing the Defendant No. 1 to recall all copies of the abovementioned book and to destroy all copies of the said book, sold or unsold;

d) Pass a decree against the Defendant No. 1 and in favour of the Plaintiff, awarding damages to the Plaintiff amounting to a sum of Rs.2,05,00,000/- to the Plaintiff payable by the Defendant No. 1, or any amount deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, with a view to discourage the Defendant No. 1 from committing similar offences in the future;

e) Pass a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction and declaration against the Defendant nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, directing them to remove all objectionable posts and comments from their respective social media platforms and to remove all such objectionable content from results on their respective search engines, issued by or attributed to the Defendant No. 1 and to take steps to ensure the curbing of the spread of hateful and inflammatory content on and through their respective platforms;

f) Pass a decree awarding costs of the suit to the Plaintiff;

g) Pass any other/further order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. Plaintiff states that he is a responsible and concerned citizen of India, a religious scholar, and a concerned follower of Islam. He avers that he represents the interests and concerns of the Shia community at large and is on a personal mission to create inter-religious dialogue and promote communal harmony.

3. Defendant No. 1 is purportedly the author of the impugned book. Defendant No. 2 is Facebook India Online Services Private Limited, Defendant No. 3 is WhatsApp Application Services Private Limited, Defendant No. 4 is Google India Private Limited and Defendant No. 5 is Twitter Communications India Private Limited. The relief qua Defendants No. 2 to 5, as sought in prayer (e), are only consequential reliefs founded on prayer (a).

4. Predominantly, paragraphs 2-7 and 10-11 of the plaint are only regarding the character and antecedents of Defendant No. 1, which, according to the Plaintiff, are facetious. Plaintiff is primarily aggrieved by the contents of the impugned book, which according to him, are damaging to communal peace and harmony, and uses derogatory and denigrating language against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). [Peace Be Upon Him.] It is also contended by the Plaintiff that contents of the book are offensive, hateful and distressing to even a casual reader, let alone a follower of Islam or an admirer of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Plaintiff avers that the Defendant No. 1 is not protected under the ambit of the fundamental right t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document