The court held that as intermediaries, defendants cannot be liable for third-party content absent specifics in defamation claims, emphasizing public interest over privacy for elected officials.

JUDGMENT

1. This suit, though instituted on 29th September, 2016, as existing now vide amended plaint dated 30th October, 2018, has been instituted against (i) Facebook Inc., (ii) Google LLC, (iii) YouTube LLC, (iv) Union of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and (v) Union of India, Department of Telecommunications, for (a) permanent injunction restraining not only the defendants but other persons from publishing, broadcasting, distributing or disseminating in any form whatsoever any defamatory material `including the purported photographs/video/audio messages referred to in the plaint, relating to or arising from, in connection with any alleged acts or behavior relatable to the plaintiff; and, (b) mandatory injunction directing the defendants and all others to remove/delete the false, concocted and fabricated photographs/videos/audio messages or any other material aforesaid.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff in the amended plaint aforesaid, (i) that the plaintiff is a sitting Member of Rajya Sabha, having been nominated in the year 2014 by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) Party; (ii) that the plaintiff in the year 2011, after winning the Local Body Elections was elected as the Mayor of Toothukudi; (iii) that the plaintiff was also the Secretary of Women Wing of AIADMK Party; (iv) that on the plaintiff on 1st August, 2016 informing the Parliament that she had been slapped by a leader of AIADMK Party at Chennai and was facing death threats, she was expelled from AIADMK Party and on the same day her ancestral house in Uvari village in Tamil Nadu was attacked; (v) that a false complaint dated 8th August, 2016 was also filed by one Ms. Banumati wife of late Karupasamy against the plaintiff and her family; (vi) that Union of India exercises regulatory control over the print, electronic and internet media of the country and have been arrayed as necessary parties to the present suit to enable this Court to do comprehensive adjudication and pass necessary directions; (vii) that the plaintiff was continuously receiving threats and baseless and false allegations were being made against the plaintiff; one of such threat was of distribution of photographs and video on social media defaming and embarrassing the plaintiff; (viii) that the persons threatening the plaintiff wanted the plaintiff to resign from her constitutional post; (ix) that the plaintiff has learnt that few unknown persons have uploaded the plaintiff's photograph/video which is being circulated through the social media i.e. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and WhatsApp; the list of URLs at which the said photographs were being circulated is set out in the plaint; (x) that on 25th September, 2016, the plaintiff started receiving phone calls from her friends, acquaintances and family members, of the photographs of the plaintiff having been uploaded on the social media; (xi) that the said photographs tarnish the image of the plaintiff; (xii) that such photographs/videos which are being circulated, do not exist and have been morphed, fabricated, concocted and forged; (xiii) in paragraph 13 that,

"It is respectfully submitted that while completely denying the veracity of the purported photograph/video/audio messages purely as a theoretical surmise even if any photograph/video were to depict in whole or part is a private act such as consensual act does not in any manner become culpable. Further, such a photograph/video would raise no public interest issue. Publicity to the content of such a photograph/video would only be for sensational and salacious purpose and