IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT

I.A. No. 22961/2023 (U/O XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)

1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, seeking permanent injunction, along with damages and compensation from the defendant nos. 1 & 2 on account of defamation.

2. The plaintiff is stated to be a highly reputed and admired civil servant, currently serving as the Chief Secretary of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi since 21.04.2023.

3. It is averred in the plaint that the defendant nos. 1 & 2 have made, published, circulated (or cause to be made/published/circulated) the article titled 'Links of Son of Delhi Chief Secretary to Beneficiary's Family in Land Over-Valuation Case Raise Questions' dated 09.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned article), available at https://thewire.in/govemment/delhi-chief-secretary-nhai-land-compensation, containing libellous allegations and insinuations against the plaintiff, all which are false, malicious, motivated, tainted with collateral objectives, unfounded and misconceived, having been made knowingly and deliberately, calculated to harm the dignity and reputation of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 2, who is the correspondent of defendant no. 1 and the author for the Article dated 09.11.2023 have hosted these false insinuations on the website of the https://thewire.in/, defendant no. 1, and further circulated the same on various social media outlets such as that of Twitter, as well as Google, and other media platforms, to defame the plaintiff and cause disrepute to his reputation.

4. It is further averred that the malicious, false and defamatory statement made, published and circulated against the plaintiff, have caused immense damage to the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff that has been built over a period of several decades. It is stated that the plaintiff is a 1987 AGMUT Cadre, Indian Administrative Service Officer and that during the expansive career which extends over 36 years, the plaintiff has served on various key position in Centre, State and Union Territory of India and served the public interest at large.

5. The defendant no. 1/The Wire is a media organization having its registered office at the address mentioned in the memo of the plaint and which comes under the jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant no. 2 is the correspondent of defendant no.1 who writes for the defendant no.1. The defendant no. 3/X Corp. (formerly, Twitter) is a social media platform wherein alleged defamatory content against the plaintiff have been published and circulated by the defendant nos.1 and 2 and others, enclosing/sharing the link to the impugned article. The defendant no. 4/Google LLC is a search engine wherein link of the impugned article is appearing.

6. The impugned article, which is filed as Document no.1 alongwith the documents filed with the plaint, concerns the quantum of compensation paid for acquisition of certain land for the purposes of undertaking construction activities in respect of the Dwarka Expressway of NHAI. It has sought to be brought out in the impugned article that the compensation in respect of the said acquired land was enhanced to Rs. 353 crores from the previously determined compensation of Rs. 41.52 crores by the concerned District Magistrate (South-West Delhi). For the purposes of the present suit, it is relevant to note that the impugned article seeks to link the plaintiff with the said enhancement of compensation.

7. To put it succinctly, the impugned article suggests that:-

(i) The enhancement of the compensation was linked to the plaintiff's "handling" of the matter.

(ii) The beneficiary of the enhanced compensation was an individual who happened to be the father-in-law of the promoter of another realty firm with which the son of the plaintiff has business/employment links.

(iii) It is alleged that the plaintiff may have a conflict of interest in the matter.

(iv) The article suggests that as regards the departmental action sought to be taken aga