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 media contexts.

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 in the privacy of her home, followed by public statement (i.e., Quote Tweet circulated by Defendant No. 1 on his personal X handle) with malicious intent, to lower the dignity of the Plaintiff and cast a slur on her temperament and character, which as per the Plaintiff is defamatory. The Plaintiff further seeks compensation in terms of damages on account of loss of reputation and dignity and public ridicule due to the willful and malicious publication and circulation of defamatory doctored video and malicious statement by the Defendants.

Facts germane for deciding the captioned application garnered from the pleadings

4. The Plaintiff is presently a politician and National Spokesperson of a National political party. The Plaintiff was earlier a journalist and had worked in that capacity for more than 15 years.

5. The Defendant No.1 is a well-recognised news anchor and journalist and presently works with Defendant No. 2 a TV Network. The Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 are social media account handlers and/or news agencies. Defendant No.11 is unknow person(s), who as per the Plaintiff have circulated the impugned video. Defendant No.12 is the cameraman of the Defendant No.2, who is part of the controversy which is subject matter of the underlying suit and captioned application.

6. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are social media platforms on which the users have posted the impugned video and published reports and/or comments and/or stories pertaining to the Plaintiff.

(i) Version of the Plaintiff as per the plaint

7. The Plaintiff is aggrieved by the incident which occurred at her residence with Defendant No. 12 (cameraman of Defendant No. 2) on 26.07.2024 in the late evening, after she withdrew her participation from a live debate programme (‘live debate’) hosted by Defendant No.1 premised on ‘Kargil Diwas’ and ‘Agniveers’, telecasted at 9:00 PM on India Today Television (i.e., Defendant No.2).

7.1. The Plaintiff was invited as a panelist on the abovesaid live debate. The Plaintiff participated in the said live debate, virtually from her residence and in this regard, Plaintiff permitted the Defendant No.12 and other crew members, who were part of the Production Control Room (PCR) team of the Defendant No.2 to visit her residence in order to record her opinion on subject matter of the live debate. The Plaintiff designated a specific portion of her residence to be included in the shooting frame and further communicated her preference to limit the shooting frame during the live debate to her head and upper body only. It is stated that the Plaintiff had a cast on her leg and did not want the same to be shown as a part of the shooting frame.

7.2. The live debate was aired at about 9 PM. During the live debate it is alleged that the Defendant No.1 disagreed with the Plaintiff on cert