Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Shazia Ilmi – Appellant
Versus
Rajdeep Sardesai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
I.A. No. 36026/2024
1. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking interim injunction against the Defendants.
2. This Court vide order dated 13.08.2024 had passed an ad-interim injunction directing Defendant No. 1 to take down the impugned video [Defined in Para 7.5 of this Judgment] from his personal X handle pending adjudication of the captioned application. Similarly, Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 were also directed to take down the impugned video from their respective social media platform, handles and websites, until the final disposal of the captioned application. Further the Defendant No.4 was directed to take down the impugned video uploaded on its platform.
By this judgment, this Court will now proceed to finally decide the captioned application.
3. The underlying suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking inter alia relief of permanent injunction against the Defendants, thereby restraining them from making, publishing, circulating objectionable, offensive, ex facie false and allegedly doctored video outraging Plaintiff’s modesty
The court affirmed the right to privacy in personal spaces, ruling unauthorized recordings violate this right, even for public figures, while also addressing the complexities of defamation in social ....
The judgment establishes the need to balance freedom of speech with the right to privacy, recognizing the constitutional protection of the right to privacy and granting injunctive relief against spec....
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....
Interim injunctions in defamation suits must balance free speech and reputation, requiring clear evidence of harm; mere allegations are insufficient for relief.
The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case of copyright infringement, while defendants claimed fair use and truth defenses for defamation, necessitating a trial to assess merits.
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.
Defamation claims arising from social media interactions require substantial evidence of harm and context consideration; provocative exchanges may negate defamation claims.
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.
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
