Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
T.V. Today Network Limited - Appellant
Versus
Cognate & Ors. - Respondents
C.S.(OS) No. 246 of 2021
Decided On : 03-06-2021
Defamation laws and principles of freedom of speech and expression are examined. The Court considers precedents on defamation and the defence of justification. The Court concludes that the tweet is false, misleading, and defamatory, and that the defence of justification is unsubstantiated. The Court grants an injunction to block the tweet and related posts from social media platforms.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, T.V. Today Network Limited, seeks interim relief in a defamation suit against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for a defamatory tweet posted on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. The Plaintiff alleges that the tweet suggests bias against the Islamic/Muslim community. The Defendant argues that the tweet is a fair comparison of the Plaintiff's reporting approach. The Court examines the tweet, the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the defence of justification. The Court finds that the tweet is false, misleading, and defamatory, and that the defence of justification is unsubstantiated. The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case and grants an injunction to block the tweet and related posts from social media platforms.
Finding of the Court:
The Court considers the impugned tweet, the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the defence of justification. The Court examines precedents and principles of defamation law, including the requirement for the Defendant to prove the truth of the alleged defamatory statement. The Court finds that the tweet is false, misleading, and defamatory, and that the defence of justification is unsubstantiated. The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case and grants an injunction to block the tweet and related posts from social media platforms.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court finds that the tweet is false, misleading, and defamatory, and that the defence of justification is unsubstantiated. The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case and grants an injunction to block the tweet and related posts from social media platforms.
Result: The Court grants an injunction to block the tweet and related posts from social media platforms.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. - I.A. 6412/2021 (u/O XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction)
1. The Plaintiff - T.V. Today Network Limited, part of the India Today Group of Companies by way of the present application seeks interim relief, in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions and damages against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on account of a defamatory tweet(A post made on the Twitter online message service (Merriam-Webster.com)) in the form of an infographic (A visual representation of information or data (Lexico.com)) posted on the micro-blogging platform - Twitter (Defendant No. 3), which has also been shared on the social media platforms - Instagram (Defendant No. 4) and Facebook (Defendant No. 5).
2. The India Today Group of Companies has widespread commercial interests in both print and electronic media and is engaged in diverse business activities ranging from printing and publishing of magazines, journals, periodicals, to running of news channels, infotainment programs, organizing conferences, seminars, music shows, and running F.M. radio channels. The Plaintiff operates a Twitter handle @IndiaToday , verified by Defendant No. 3 as original, to meet the need of the current times and to stay connected with its viewers, consumers and readers in the social media space. On this Twitter handle, the Plaintiff posts breaking news and other news stories to provide information and updates to its audience.
3. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant No. 1 through Defendant No. 2 has, in a premeditated, planned and systematic manner launched an attack against the Plaintiff-Company by posting a defamatory infographic dated 15th April, 2021 and sharing the same on the social media platforms of Defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The said post is per se false, baseless and defamatory as it seems to suggest that the Plaintiff is adopting two different approaches in news reporting and is biased against the Islamic/ Muslim community.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The factual background that led the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to upload the impugned infographic needs to be briefly noted in order to understand the context of the post.
5. On 1st April, 2021, the Kumbh Mela kicked off in Haridwar, Uttarakhand and this event was covered by many major media outlets, including the Plaintiff. During the course of its coverage, between 1st April, 2021 and 14th April, 2021, the Plaintiff put up multiple stories/ reports about lack of adherence to COVID-19 protocols, including breach of social distancing norms, at the said event. On this subject, on 14th April, 2021, the Plaintiff, shared two tweets. The first tweet was displayed under the title Covid protocols go for a toss during Kumbh Mela 2021 and the second tweet carried the title Lakhs take holy dip to mark Shahi Snan at #Mahakumbh at #Haridwar watch #5iveLive, with @ShivAroor . Meanwhile, on 13th April, 2021, the holy month of Ramadan began in India. The Plaintiff covered the Ramadan gathering at the Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad, Telangana and highlighted the violation of COVID-19 protocols at the said gathering as well. This was manifested in the form of the third tweet, posted on 14th April, 2021, under the title Social distancing goes for a toss at Hyderabad s Mecca masjid on day 1 of Ramadan .
6. Out of the three tweets mentioned above, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have picked up the second and third tweets to create the infographic dated 15th April, 2021, ostensibly with the objective of showing the contrasting and biased approach of the Plaintiff in its reporting of violation of COVID-19 protocols relating to religious gatherings of the Muslim community. The said infographic, the apple of discord, as posted on Twitter reads as under: -
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
7. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, referring to the afore-said infographic, contends that Defendant No. 1 has accused the Plaintiff of Islamophobia (Dislike of or p
The right to freedom of speech and expression is protected, but it does not entitle anyone to resort to speech that is defamatory. In a defamation suit, the Defendant has the burden of proving the tr....
The court ruled that the right to freedom of speech takes precedence over defamation claims unless a strong prima facie case is established, underscoring the necessity to balance fundamental rights.
The judgment established the balance between freedom of speech and expression and the right to reputation, and granted interim relief to protect the reputation of the plaintiffs.
The judgment establishes that defamatory statements can be restrained by injunction if they threaten irreparable harm to a person's reputation, balancing free speech with the right to reputation.
Defamation plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: social media posts in casual conversational groups read impressionistically in context; no cause of action absent identifiability, substantial ....
The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case of copyright infringement, while defendants claimed fair use and truth defenses for defamation, necessitating a trial to assess merits.
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
