Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.
Hanuman Beniwal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Vinay Mishra & Ors. - Respondents
CS(OS) 370 of 2022, I.A. 9722 of 2022
Decided On : 13-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Gunjan Kumar, Ms. Sumitra Choudhary and Ms. Renu Bajpai, Advocates, for the Appellant.

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.

Headnote:
Section 151 C.P.C. - Exemption of Court Fees - Section 151 C.P.C., Section 80 of C.P.C., Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application for exemption of filing of Court fees under Section 151 C.P.C., exemption from serving the Government parties under Section 80 of C.P.C., and the suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed applications for exemption of filing of Court fees, exemption from serving the Government parties, and for perpetual and mandatory injunction, consequential relief for damages and defamation. The defendant No. 1 made defamatory statements against the plaintiffs on social media and in print media.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the tweets made by defendant No. 1 were prima facie defamatory and injuncted the defendant from re-publishing, releasing, transmitting, distributing or publishing any defamatory statements. The court also directed the defendant to mask, block, or suspend the impugned tweets.
Issues: The issues involved defamation, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to reputation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the freedom of speech and expression with the right to reputation, and granted interim relief to protect the reputation of the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The court granted interim relief to the plaintiffs and restrained the defendant from re-publishing defamatory statements and directed the defendant to mask, block, or suspend the impugned tweets.

ORDER

I.A. 9723/2022

The above application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Section 151 C.P.C. for exemption of filing of Court fees.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that he shall be depositing the Court fee within a period of 10 days from today.

In view of the above, application accordingly stands disposed of.

LA 9724/2022

The above application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Section 151 C.P.C. for exemption from filing typed/translated copies of Dim/Handwritten/Illegible documents, with proper margin.

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

Application accordingly stands disposed of.

LA 9725/2022

The above application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Section 80 of C.P.C. for exempting the plaintiffs from serving the Government parties in advance and for permission to serve as directed by the court.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that relief is primarily against defendant Nos.1 to 3.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the urgency prayed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, service of notice under Section 80 CPC is exempted.

Application is accordingly disposed of.

CS (OS) 370/2022 & I.A. No. 9722/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC)

This is a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction, consequential relief for damages and defamation.

Let the plaint be registered as Suit. Issue summons to the defendants on necessary steps being taken by the plaintiffs by all permissible modes.

The summons shall indicate that the written statement(s) to the suit and reply(ies) to the application(s) be filed by the defendants within thirty days from the date of receipt of the summons. The defendants shall also file the affidavit of admission/denial of the document filed by the plaintiff, failing which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.

The plaintiffs are at liberty to file replication(s) to the written statement(s) and rejoinder(s) to the reply(ies) filed by the defendant(s) before the next date of hearing following the filing of the written statement(s)/reply(ies). The replication(s) shall be accompanied by the affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the defendant(s), failing which the replication(s) shall not be taken on record.

If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

List before the Joint Registrar on 18.07.2022 for completion of service and pleadings.

I.A. No. 9722/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC)

1. The plaintiffs have preferred a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction, consequential relief for damages and defamation. The plaintiff No. 1 (Mr. Hanuman Beniwal) is a serving Member of Parliament in the 17th Lok Sabha from Nagaur and is founding member and National Convenor of the Rashtriya Loktantrik Party (RLP). The plaintiff No. 2 is the Member of Legislative Assembly from Bhopalgarh and the Partys State President while plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 are also the Member of Legislative Assembly from Khinsvar and Merta respectively.

2. The defendant No. 1 is the Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Dwarka, Delhi and Election In-Charge for the State of Rajasthan for defendant No.2/Aam Admi Party.

3. As per the case of the plaintiffs, since Rajya Sabha elections were scheduled on 10.06.2022, the RLP along with its office bearers i.e., the plaintiffs took the decision to vote in favour of an independent candidate Mr. Subhash Chandra on 06.06.2022 at 08:54 PM. The plaintiff No. 1, who is also the National Convener of the Rashtriya Loktantrik Party posted a tweet on his twitter page which reads as under:

"The three MLAs of @RLPINDIAorg will not vote for the BJP and Congress candidate in the upcoming Rajya Sabha elections and respecting the dignity of democracy, will vote in support of the independent candidate Mr.@.:subhashchandra"

4. Thereupon defendant No. 1 quoting the same tweet started a malicious campaign against the plaintiffs and their party wi