JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

I.A. 855/2019

1. The Plaintiffs – Swami Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. have filed the present suit against the Defendants- Facebook Inc., (Defendant No. 1)

Google Inc., (Defendant No. 2) YouTube LLC, (Defendant No. 3) Google Plus, (Defendant No. 4) Twitter International Company, (Defendant No. 5) and Ashok Kumar (`John Does‟), (Defendant No. 6) seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction, as also damages. For the sake of convenience, the Defendants and their various websites, social media platforms, URLs, weblinks etc., are collectively referred to as ―Platforms‖.

2. The allegation of the Plaintiffs is that various defamatory remarks and information including videos, based on a book titled ‗Godman to Tycoon – the Untold Story of Baba Ramdev‘ are being disseminated over the Defendants‟ platforms. The Plaintiffs submit that the defamatory content contained in the said book was subject matter of a judgment passed in CM (M) 556/2018, wherein a ld. Single Judge of this Court had restrained the publisher and author from publishing, distributing and selling the book without deleting the offending portions. The allegations contained in the videos, which have been uploaded on the Defendants‟ platforms are in fact the defamatory allegations contained in the book which have already been directed to be removed. The said judgment was challenged by the publisher before the Supreme Court and the same is pending. It is however submitted that there is no stay of the order/judgement.

3. The suit was listed on 21st January, 2019, on which date, notice was directed to be served on the Defendants. On 24th January, 2019, after hearing ld. Counsels for the parties, the following order was passed:

“6. A perusal of the transcript of the video shows that similar allegations as contained in the offending portions of the book which were directed to be deleted, are also contained in the video. The said judgment has been appealed against in the Supreme Court. However, there is no stay as per the Ld. Counsels for the Plaintiffs. Considering that the allegations made are similar to the allegations which were directed to be deleted by the said order, a prima facie case is made out for grant of injunction. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and irreparable injury would be caused if the interim order as prayed for is not granted. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the Defendants 1- 3, submit that the Defendants are willing to block the said URLs/disable them from the India domain. Till the next date, the Defendants are directed to remove/block/disable the URLs and weblinks connected to the offending video for the India domain. The URLs are mentioned at pages 19 to 24 of the documents filed by the Plaintiff. The blocking/disabling be given effect forthwith and, in any event, no later than 72 hours.

7. The question as to whether the said URLs also deserve to be blocked globally, would be heard on the next date. A short reply on this issue be filed by the Defendants within two weeks.

8. The basic subscriber information for the entity/person/s, which/who has uploaded the said video be placed in a sealed cover.‖

Thus, an interim order was granted directing removal of the offending URL and weblinks for the India domain. The platforms submitted that insofar as global blocking of the videos is concerned, they wish to make submissions on this issue. The above order of injunction continues to operate and parties have been heard on the issue of global blocking.

4. Thereafter, the platforms have placed on record the Basic Subscriber Information (hereinafter ‗BSI‘) relating to the uploading of the videos. Pleadings have also been completed by the parties. On 23rd May, 2019, while the matter was part heard, the Court had directed the platforms to seek instructions in respect of the following:

―(i) Whether the identity of a person uploading the video is shown on YouTube at the beginning or end of the video and if not —for what reason?

(a) Can