Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Asha Menon, J.
Kailash Gahlot - Appellant
Versus
Vijender Gupta & Ors. - Respondents
CS(OS) 403/2021, I.A. Nos. 10839/2021, 10842/2021 & 12535/2021
Decided On : 07-03-2022
CS(OS) 403/2021 - MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION - ORDER XXXIX RULES (1) & (2) READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC - EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION - DEFAMATION - ORDER VI RULE 17 CPC READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC - AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - TWEETS - FACEBOOK POSTS - SOCIAL MEDIA - PUBLIC FIGURE - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION - ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - RIGHT TO PRIVACY - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS - JUSTIFICATION - INTERIM INJUNCTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE LOSS AND INJURY - DAMAGES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a Minister of Transport, Revenue, Law Justice & Legislative Affairs, Administrative Reforms and Information and Technology for the Government of National Territory of Delhi, filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction as also for damages for defamation against Defendant No. 1, the Leader of the Opposition in the House, for making various tweets that the plaintiff alleged were highly defamatory of him. The tweets were made in the context of the plaintiff's role in the purchase of low floor buses and the award of the Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) to M/s JBM Auto Ltd. The plaintiff claimed that the tweets had damaged his reputation and sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendant from posting/tweeting any defamatory or scandalous or factually incorrect Tweets/Posts on his Twitter account, Facebook account (i.e. Defendants No. 2 & 3 platforms) and/or any other social media profile, against the plaintiff in respect of purchase of low floor buses from Tata Motors Ltd and JBL Auto Ltd. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that the tweets were made in the public interest and were based on true facts, and that the plaintiff was a public figure who should be subject to greater scrutiny. The defendant also filed an application seeking permission to amend the verification of his written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the tweets made by the defendant were not per se defamatory and that the defendant had raised a prima facie case of justification for his comments. The court also held that the plaintiff had not established that he would suffer irreparable loss and injury if an interim injunction was not granted, as he had quantified his claim for damages and could be compensated in monetary terms if the defendant failed to justify his tweets. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction and granted the defendant two weeks' time to file the proper verification of his written statement.
Issues: 1. Whether the tweets made by the defendant were defamatory. 2. Whether the defendant had raised a prima facie case of justification for his comments. 3. Whether the plaintiff had established that he would suffer irreparable loss and injury if an interim injunction was not granted.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the tweets made by the defendant were not per se defamatory, as they were made in the context of the plaintiff's role in the purchase of low floor buses and the award of the AMC to M/s JBM Auto Ltd., and were based on true facts. The court also noted that the defendant had raised a prima facie case of justification for his comments, as he had referred to various documents and press reports to support his allegations. 2. The court held that the plaintiff had not established that he would suffer irreparable loss and injury if an interim injunction was not granted, as he had quantified his claim for damages and could be compensated in monetary terms if the defendant failed to justify his tweets.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction and granted the defendant two weeks' time to file the proper verification of his written statement.
JUDGMENT
I.A.10839/2021 (by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules (1) & (2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants) & I.A. 12535/2021 (by defendant No. 1 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement along with the affidavit)
1. The suit has been filed for mandatory and permanent injunction as also for damages for defamation.
2. This order will dispose of two applications, one under Order XXXIX Rules (1) & (2) read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the plaintiff
and the second under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1., moved alongwith the plaint, which seeks the following reliefs:
'1. Granting an ex-parte, ad-interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants by directing the Defendant No. 1 to immediately archive temporarily from his twitter account all the Tweets/posts made against the Plaintiff on 13.03.2021, 14.03.2021, 15.03.2021, 15.06.2021, 16.06.2021, 17.06.2021, 17.06.2021, 17.06.2021, 18.06.2021, 20.06.2021 , 26.06.2021, 27.06.2021, 30.06.2021, 01.07.2021, 04.07.2021, 05.07.2021, 10.07.2021, 11.07.2021, 27.07.2021, 19.08.2021 and 20.08.2021. The details of the said tweets with URLs have been mentioned in Schedule-I with the present plaint.
2. Granting an ex-parte, ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants by directing the Defendant No. 1 to immediately archive temporarily from his Facebook Account all the defamatory posts made against the Plaintiff, the details of which along with URLs have been mentioned m Schedule-II with the present Plaint.
3. Grant an ex-parte injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from posting/tweeting any defamatory or scandalous or factually incorrect Tweets/Posts on his Twitter account, Facebook account (i.e. Defendants No. 2 & 3 platforms) and/or any other social media profile, against the plaintiff in respect of purchase of low floor buses from Tata Motors Ltd and JBL Auto Ltd.
4. Grant an ex-parte, ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants by directing the Defendant No. 1 to stop, till the adjudication of the present suit, posting/tweeting any defamatory or scandalous or factually incorrect Tweets/Posts on his Twitter account, Facebook account (i.e. Defendants No. 2 & 3 platforms)and/or any other social media profile, and/ or print and electronic media against the Plaintiff in respect of purchase of low floor buses from Tata Motors Ltd and JBL Auto Ltd.,
5. Granting an ex-parte, ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants by directing the Defendant No. 2 and 3 to not allow all or any defamatory or scandalous or factually incorrect Tweets/Posts made by the Defendant No. 1 on their platforms against the Plaintiff in respect of purchase of low floor buses from Tata Motors Ltd and JBL Auto Ltd, which have been mentioned inSchedule-1 and Schedule-11 with the present Plaint, till the final adjudication of the present suit,
6. Grant an ex-parte, ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants by directing the Defendant No. 2 and 3 to temporarily take down all or any defamatory or scandalous or factually incorrect Tweets/Posts made by the Defendant No. 1 on their platforms against the Plaintiff in respect of purchase of low floor buses from Tata Motors Ltd and JBL Auto Ltd, which have been mentioned in Schedule-1 and Schedule-11 with the present Plaint, till the final adjudication of the present suit,
7. Any other relief(s) as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court may be granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.'
3. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 are members of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi. While the plaintiff is the Minister of Transport, Revenue, Law Justice & Legislative Affairs, Administrative Reforms and Information and Technology for the Government of Natio
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 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 need to protect reputation from unsubstantiated allegations and highlighted the balance between freedom of speech and the right to safeguard reputation.
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.
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
