Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 12672
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Rajat Sharma – Appellant
Versus
X Corp – Respondent
CS(OS) 495/2024|I.A. 31743/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: None
The court established that the right to free speech is not absolute and must be balanced against an individual's right to dignity and reputation under Article 21. Where defamatory content is prima facie false, an interim injunction is justified to prevent irreparable damage to a person’s professional standing.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to reputation and dignity - Defamation - Interim Injunction - Plaintiff, a prominent journalist, sought removal of alleged defamatory tweets and videos - Court found prima facie evidence that impugned content misrepresented facts by alleging abusive language where none was used - Held, dignity and honour are constituent parts of Article 21; right to free speech does not permit malicious defamation. (Paras 41, 42, 47)
(B) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Balance of convenience - Irreparable injury - Court emphasized that professional reputation once damaged is difficult to restore through monetary damages - If content is proven prima facie defamatory and lacks evidentiary foundation, interim restraint is justified to prevent future harm. (Paras 43, 44, 48, 49)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a prominent journalist, alleged that defendants posted edited videos and social media content falsely accusing him of using abusive language against defendant No. 6 during a televised debate. Despite the plaintiff’s denial and request for removal, the defendants continued to disseminate the content and held press conferences reiterating the allegations. The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to remove this content.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the video evidence played during the proceedings contradicted the defendants’ claims. Finding the content prima facie defamatory, the court concluded that the irreparable harm caused to the plaintiff's reputation outweighed the defendants' right to free speech in this context.
Issues: Whether the defendants’ social media posts and videos concerning the plaintiff constitute per se defamation, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interim ex-parte injunction for their removal.
Ratio Decidendi: Freedom of speech under Article 19 is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to dignity and reputation under Article 21. Where content is prima facie false and calculated to damage a person's professional credibility, the court must intervene to prevent irreparable harm to that reputation.
Result: Application allowed; defendants directed to remove or make private the specified content.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural compliance for exemption and court fee payment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. overview of parties and the alleged defamatory acts. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. arguments for seeking an ex-parte interim injunction. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 4. court’s reasoning on defamation and the right to reputation. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 5. final orders and directives regarding content removal. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (Oral)
I.As. 31741/2024, 31744/2024 (Exemptions)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of.
I.A. 31742/2024 (u/S 149 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)
3. By way of present application, the applicant/plaintiff seeks time to file the court fee at this stage and grant two weeks’ time to file the same.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff submits that he has filed the court fee, however, the same is not on record.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff shall pursue with the Registry and place the same on record.
6. The application is disposed of.
I.A. 31740/2024 (u/O XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)
7. By way of present application, the applicant/plaintiff seeks the following prayers: -
“a. Pass an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction directing the Defendant Nos. 4-6 to immediately takedown/delete the Tweets and YouTube videos published at the URLs mentioned in paragraph 8 above, wherein false and factually incorrect, per se defamatory and libellous statements/imputations have been made by Defendant Nos. 4-6 and others acting in concert with them, against the Plaintiff;
b. Pass an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction to immediately takedown/delete any further tweets containing same / similar false allegations / imputations against the Plaintiff that may have been published by Defendant Nos. 4-6 on their social media accounts including on the platforms operated by Defendants No.1 - 3, and other platforms;
c. Pass an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 4-6 from publishing any further statements in relation to and / or similar to the false and factually incorrect, per-se defamatory and libellous statements / imputations made by Defendant Nos. 4-6 against the Plaintiff in their series of tweets dated 10.06.2024 and 11.06.2024 and in the press conference dated 11.06.2024 during the pendency of the suit;
d. Pass an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction including in the nature of a dynamic injunction, directing the Defendant Nos. 1-3, as also other presently unknown Defendants, to immediately take down / remove from their platforms all instances of the Impugned Tweets and Videos tweeted, retweeted / republished, posted / reposted or shared / re-shared etc., by third parties containing the per-se defamatory content against the Plaintiff;
e. Pass an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction directing Defendant Nos. 4-6 to issue / publish an unconditional apology to the Plaintiff by way of an official press release including on all their official social media accounts.”
8. The Suit for Permanent Injunction and Damages has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff against the defendants.
9. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff is a well-known Indian Journalist and TV Anchor and is also the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of M/s Independent News Service Private Limited (INDIA TV) and is the highest followed television news personality globally on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) with 11.1 million followers.
10. The plaintiff on account of his sheer hard work with utmost sincerity in the field of Journalism and Media, was awarded with the Padma Bhushan in the year 2015 and has also hosted various television programmes apart from the famous Programme ‘APP KI ADALAT’ which is the longest running television sho
