Interim injunction granted to prevent defamation; reputation must be safeguarded against false public statements.

ORDER

This Application had been filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent, his men, agents or representatives from publishing, circulating and writing in any manner on any social media, platform or any other public domain, any false and derogatory remarks about the applicant and his institution, pending disposal of the suit.

2.Mr.Krishna Ravindaran, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr.C.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Abhinav Parthasarathy learned counsel for the sole respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant is a reputed Doctor and he is a consultant diabetologist. He had also been conferred with the various awards in the field of Medical excellence. He would submit that in the year 2013, when a drug named Pioglitazone was introduced, he along with the other senior Diabetologist and professors published a letter to the Editor of a Journal of Association of Physicians of India that certain ill-effects were associated with the said drug. He had also sent a letter to the Drug Control of India indicating the side-effects of the said drug. Initially the said drug was banned by the Department. After receiving various representations and also considering the said drug to be cheaper in a market and taking into consideration the banning of the said drug by other countries, the same was permitted to be sold in India subject to the drug manufacturers also publishing a caution on the use of the said drug and left it open to the Doctors to prescribe the said drug. Right from the said date, the respondent herein had been defaming the applicant and had also been approaching various forums making complaint against the applicant. He would submit that all the complaints as against the applicant had been closed, but the respondent is making statements to bring disrepute to the applicant. He would submit that the respondent would have right to comment on the views of the applicant, but had stretched himself calling the applicant a con artist, fraudster. He would submit that as a dutiful Doctor in the field of Diabetologist, it is his duty to bring about the pros and cons of a drug for the benefit of the patients and his act was only such act. Therefore, he prays this Court to grant an injunction restraining the respondent from publishing, circulating or writing in any manner in any social media or other public domain false and derogatory statements against the applicant.

4. Countering his arguments, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the applicant only at the behest of certain pharmaceutical industry had lodged a complaint as against the use of drug. He would submit that the said drug has been approved by the Drug Control General of India, was the cheapest available drug for people suffering from diabetics. He would further submit that the applicant had instilled fear and panic among the public, which had led to ambiguity in the minds of the medical fraternity. He would submit that within a short span of time, when the authority was appraised of the benefits of the drug, the ban was lifted. He would submit that the applicant himself had admitted an error in a judgment in an article published by him in a leading daily news paper. He would submit that what has been attempted by the respondent is to bring to the knowledge of the public, the conduct of the applicant in supporting a pharmaceutical industry.

5. He would further submit that such statements made by the respondent cannot be said to be defamatory or derogatory. He would contend that the respondent had been litigating the issues before various forums being the whistle-blower on the issue and the Writ Petitions are also pending