Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Qamar Hasnain - Appellant
Versus
Syed Waseem Rizvi - Respondent
CS(OS) 702 of 2021 & I.A. 17206 of 2021
Decided On : 23-12-2021
A claim based on emotional offense to religious sentiments does not constitute a legal injury under tort law, thus rendering the suit non-maintainable.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 9 and Section 91 - Maintainability of suit - Plaintiff sought injunction and damages against derogatory content in published book. Court held that claims based on hurt to religious sentiments do not constitute actionable wrong under tort law. Suit rejected for non-disclosure of legal rights. (Paras 10, 12, 13)
(B) Jurisdiction - Civil Court's jurisdiction to try suits is dictated by legal rights and injuries acknowledged under law. Claims of personal grievance via collective communal harm do not warrant maintainability. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff alleged defamatory statements in a book authored by Defendant No. 1 against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). He represents the Shia community and sought various injunctions and damages for perceived harm. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The Court found the suit non-maintainable, lacking a legal foundation to seek relief for general hurt. Personal injury claims were not actionable under tort law. (Paras 10-12)
Issues: Whether the Plaintiff adequately disclosed a maintainable legal right in the suit based on the claims of religious offense and communal harm. (Paras 6, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that without clear legal rights established, the focus on emotional distress or communal grievance cannot sustain a suit in civil law. Rights claimed were more appropriately addressed within criminal law frameworks. (Paras 12-13)
Result: The plaint is rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks injunction against derogatory statements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. plaintiff argues statements incite communal disharmony. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations on representative suit requirements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court finds suit lacks maintainability based on legal rights. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. suit rejected; merits not examined. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA HYBRID MODE]
SAnjeev Narula, J. (Oral)
1. Aggrieved with an online self-publication titled "Muhammad", purportedly authored by Defendant No.1, Plaintiff has approached this Court seeking orders restraining Defendant No. 1 from making derogatory, demeaning and incendiary statements against the religion of Islam, the Holy Qur'an and Prophet Mohammed and other revered personages. The suit contains following prayers:
"a) Pass a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendant No. 1, thereby restraining the Defendant No. 1 from making statements and/or publishing remarks that are lascivious, prurient derogatory and hurtful, against the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the religion of Islam, its followers, its tenets and/or against the Holy Qur'an;
b) Pass a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendant No. 1, thereby restraining the Defendant No. 1 from selling, letting to hire, distributing, publicly exhibiting, or in any manner putting into circulation for the purpose of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition, circulation and/or promotion, copies of the book titled Muhammad in any way and through any medium, including but not limited to the form of a paperback, hardcover, or any other print media as well as in the form of digital media in any way;
c) Pass a decree against the Defendant No. 1 directing the Defendant No. 1 to recall all copies of the abovementioned book and to destroy all copies of the said book, sold or unsold;
d) Pass a decree against the Defendant No. 1 and in favour of the Plaintiff, awarding damages to the Plaintiff amounting to a sum of Rs.2,05,00,000/- to the Plaintiff payable by the Defendant No. 1, or any amount deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, with a view to discourage the Defendant No. 1 from committing similar offences in the future;
e) Pass a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction and declaration against the Defendant nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, directing them to remove all objectionable posts and comments from their respective social media platforms and to remove all such objectionable content from results on their respective search engines, issued by or attributed to the Defendant No. 1 and to take steps to ensure the curbing of the spread of hateful and inflammatory content on and through their respective platforms;
f) Pass a decree awarding costs of the suit to the Plaintiff;
g) Pass any other/further order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. Plaintiff states that he is a responsible and concerned citizen of India, a religious scholar, and a concerned follower of Islam. He avers that he represents the interests and concerns of the Shia community at large and is on a personal mission to create inter-religious dialogue and promote communal harmony.
3. Defendant No. 1 is purportedly the author of the impugned book. Defendant No. 2 is Facebook India Online Services Private Limited, Defendant No. 3 is WhatsApp Application Services Private Limited, Defendant No. 4 is Google India Private Limited and Defendant No. 5 is Twitter Communications India Private Limited. The relief qua Defendants No. 2 to 5, as sought in prayer (e), are only consequential reliefs founded on prayer (a).
4. Predominantly, paragraphs 2-7 and 10-11 of the plaint are only regarding the character and antecedents of Defendant No. 1, which, according to the Plaintiff, are facetious. Plaintiff is primarily aggrieved by the contents of the impugned book, which according to him, are damaging
