Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
V.Senthil Balaji – Appellant
Versus
Nirmal Kumar – Respondent
O.A.No.731 of 2022 and A.Nos.5161 to 5164 and 5913 of 2022, In C.S. No.244 of 2022
Decided on : 12-04-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 19(2) and 21 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 - Seeking injunctive - Order of ad interim injunction - Disobedience - Constitutional democracy - Pleads truth or justification - Suit for defamation - Whether content is defamatory or not - Held, In Greenpeace International High Court considered question whether principles and standards that are applied for defamation in print and audio-visual medium should also apply to social media and answered said question in affirmative - Plaintiff stated that first defendant has about followers on his twitter account and also provided information regarding number of likes and re-tweets in respect of each impugned tweet - In court speed and frequency with which messages can be disseminated to users of social media platforms and the interactive nature of these platforms would be a material consideration especially for purpose of deciding interlocutory applications including applications for deletion of the tweets and video - Judgments of High Court which were cited by also point in this direction - Appeal Disposal of.
Key Points: - Interim injunctions in defamation by public officials require proof of reckless disregard for truth (!) (!) . - Social media defamation standards must account for speed and interactive nature of platforms (!) (!) . - Tweets alleging corruption must be verified before restraining orders are continued (!) (!) .
ORDER :
PRAYER : This Original Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC 1908:
(a) Why this Application should not be treated as urgent ?
(b) Why this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the first respondent/defendant from in anyway making, printing, publishing, broadcasting, disseminating or circulating the statements, articles, pictures, cartoons, caricatures, sketches, tweets and video mentioned in the Schedule A to L herein or its contents and/or any other defamatory statements, articles, pictures, cartoons, caricatures, sketches, tweets or videos which causes damage or tends to lower the applicant/plaintiff's reputation on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and/or in any other media and/or in any other manner pending disposal of the above suit?
(c) Why this Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ?
PRAYER : This Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Section 151 of CPC 1908:
(a) Why this Application should not be treated as urgent ?
(b) Why this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant an order of interim direction directing the third respondent/defendant to remove all the tweets and video mentioned in the schedule A to F and H to L herein from its platform www.twitter.com pending disposal of the above suit?
(c) Why this Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ?
PRAYER : This Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Section 151 of CPC 1908:
(a) Why this Application should not be treated as urgent ?
(b) Why this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant an order of interim direction directing the fourth respondent/defendant to remove the video mentioned in the schedule G herein from its YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/c/vikatanwebtv or any other media pending disposal of the above suit?
(c) Why this Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ?
PRAYER : This Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Section 151 of CPC 1908:
(a) Why this Application should not be treated as urgent ?
(b) Why this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant an order of interim direction directing the second respondent/defendant to remove the video mentioned in the schedule G herein from its platform www.youtube.com pending disposal of the above suit?
(c) Why this Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ?
PRAYER : This Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Section 151 of CPC 1908:
(a) Why this Application should not be treated as urgent ?
(b) Why this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant an order of interim direction directing the first respondent/defendant to remove all the defamatory tweets and video mentioned in the schedules A to L herein from YouTube, Twitter and all media accounts of the first respondent/defendant pending disposal of the above suit and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and thus render justice?
(c) Why this Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ?
PRAYER : This Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Section 151 of CPC 1908:
(a) Why this Application should not be treated as urgent ?
(b) Why this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order to arrest and detain the first respondent in civil prison?
(c) Why this Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case?
The suit is directed at alleged defamation by the
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.
The judgment establishes that defamatory statements can be restrained by injunction if they threaten irreparable harm to a person's reputation, balancing free speech with the right to reputation.
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.
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....
Retweeting allegedly defamatory content constitutes 'publication' under Section 499 IPC, attracting liability unless clarified with a disclaimer or within exceptions.
Defamation plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: social media posts in casual conversational groups read impressionistically in context; no cause of action absent identifiability, substantial ....
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
