Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 12716
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J
RAJATARANGINI INDIA MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SANJAY SHARMA – Respondent
CS(OS) 558/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Raghav Awasthi, Mr. Mukesh Sharma
The court affirmed that allegations against journalists must be supported with tangible evidence to protect their professional integrity.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 149, 151, 39 - Defamation - Plaintiffs sought permanent and mandatory injunction alleging defamatory posts by defendants which compromised plaintiff no. 2’s credibility as a journalist - Court observed that allegations must not disregard a journalist's integrity, emphasizing the need for impartiality - Prima facie case for granting ad interim injunction established. (Paras 35, 36, 33)
(B) Interim Injunction - Court reviewed principles for granting injunction in cases of libel, noting the necessity of strict standards for unarguably defamatory statements - Potential for reputational harm highlighted with reference to social media context. (Paras 36, 38)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants for defamation arising from social media posts, asserting harm to journalistic integrity and reputation.
Findings of Court:
Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for injunctive relief with considerations of irreparable harm and balance of convenience.
Issues: Whether the posts were defamatory and justified any interim relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that statements posted did not possess tangible supporting evidence, affirming that allegations without proof compromise journalists' integrity.
Result: Ad interim injunction against defendants granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defamation claims against public figures require substantiation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 2. effective harm is inflicted through online defamatory statements. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 3. journalists must maintain integrity, unaffected by baseless allegations. (Para 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J (ORAL)
I.A. 33691/2024 (under Section 149 read with Section 151 CPC for extension of time for filing deficient Court fee)
1. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs undertakes to deposit the deficient Court fee within a period of two weeks. 2. Let the deficient Court fee be filed as undertaken above.
3. The Registry is directed to notify the Court in case the deficient Court fee is not filed within the aforesaid period of two weeks.
4. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 33692/2024 (under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption by the plaintiffs)
5. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
6. The application is disposed of.
I.A. 33693/2024 (under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from advance service to defendant nos. 2 and 3 due to non-availability of their details)
7. Considering the urgent relief sought in the application being I.A. 33689/2023, the exemption is granted from advance service to defendant no. 2 and 3, subject to all just exceptions. 8. The application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 558/2024
9. Let plaint be registered as a suit.
10. On filing of process fee, summons be issued to the defendants by all permissible modes.
11. The summons shall indicate that written statement must be filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of summons. The defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiffs, failing which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
12. The plaintiffs are at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty days after filing of the written statement. The replication shall be accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the defendant, failing which the replication shall not be taken on record.
13. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.
14. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
15. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of service, pleadings, admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits on 27.09.2024.
16. List before the Court after completion of pleadings on 29.10.2024.
I.A. 33689/2023 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the Plaintiffs)
17. Issue notice.
18. Notice may be served upon the defendants by all permissible modes.
19. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent and mandatory injunction and damages against the defendant nos. 1 to 3, alleging that the said defendants have uploaded various posts on the micro blogging website ‘X’ (defendant no. 4) containing defamatory allegations against the plaintiffs.
20. The plaintiff no. 1 is a body corporate which runs a digital news media by the name of ‘The New Indian’, whereas, the plaintiff no. 2 is the Editor-In-Chief of ‘The New Indian’.
21. The defendant no. 1 is stated to be Editor-in-Chief of ‘4PM Evening Newspaper’ and has a handle of the micro blogging website ‘X’ as @Editor_SanjayS. The defendant no. 2 is one Sultan Siddiquey having ‘X’ handle viz., @SiddiqueySultan. The defendant no. 3 is one Chandra Kumar and his ‘X’ handle is stated to be @ChandraKumar_80. The defendant no. 4 is micro blogging website known as ‘X’ (X Corp) / earlier known as ‘Twitter’.
22. It is the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs that during the general elections 2024, the plaintiff no. 2 had interviewed Sh. Narendra Modi, the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India. He submits that the plaintiff no.2 is one of the most versatile journalists who has reported almost every big national story since 2004 in India. Apart from aforesaid interview, the plaintiff
