TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant Nos. 1 to 13 from the platform of defendant Nos. 14 and 15 and also ad interim ex parte injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 to 13 thereby restraining all the defendant Nos. 1 to 13, including their agents, representatives, associates, heirs, relatives etc., to cease and desist from posting any derogatory and harmful material on the social media platforms, including on the platforms of defendant Nos. 14 and 15 pertaining to the plaintiff, during the pendency of the present Suit. 2. It is submitted in the Application that the plaintiff holds a distinguished position of Senior Advocate, a title conferred upon him by the esteemed Supreme Court of India, in the year 2019. This conferment of Senior Advocate reflects his considerable expertise and experience in the legal field. The applicant/plaintiff also earlier served as Honorary Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association. The applicant/plaintiff's role highlights his commitment to the legal profession and his active involvement in the affairs of the legal community at the highest levels. 3. In addition to his legal pursuits, the applicant/plaintiff is actively involved in the realm of politic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that the plaintiff deserved to be beaten because of his status as a Member and Office Bearer of BJP, given the task of defending the parties in various T.V. debates and that the legal fraternity hates the alleged conceited attitude of the applicant/plaintiff for which reason, he has been assaulted. 11. It is further submitted that at some points of the video, the applicant/plaintiff has been subjected to downright abusive language which is liable to be injuncted, as has been observed in the Civil Suit bearing No. CS(OS) 403/2022 titled Kairaviview (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Hindustan Times/Mint & Ors. Some Deepfake videos have also been posted which are liable to be removed. 12. Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff, in support of his arguments, has relied that in the Civil Suit bearing No. CS(OS) 134/2024 titled Shaviya Sharma vs. Squnit Neo & Ors., wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has directed the removal of content as it had the potential of unleashing violence on the victim, in real life. Similarly, in CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 titled Arvind Kejriwal vs. State & Anr., it has been observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that greater r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;2 and 3 were merely debating on this aspect, which is their Fundamental Right. The mere reporting of an incident which had actually taken place cannot be curtailed by way of an injunction. 20. None has contested the Suit on behalf of defendant Nos. 4 and 5. 21. Learned counsel on behalf of defendant No. 6 has submitted that though he has full sympathy for the untoward incident, to which the plaintiff was subjected, but it is submitted that defendant No. 6 is a Social Activist/Journalist and generally using social media platform in exercise of his Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Though the applicant/plaintiff has alleged that the content posted by the answering defendant is defamatory and has sought interim injunction, but it may be noted that the plaintiff is a Politician and his activities are of public interest and he should be welcoming the criticism, satires and news stories made, on a lighter note. Admittedly, an untoward incident happened at District Court at Gautambudh Nagar, wherein the plaintiff was admittedly manhandled. The defendant No. 6 had simply posted a request for the video o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kailash Gahlot vs. Vijender Gupta & Ors., MANU/DE/0749/2022. It is asserted that the applicant/plaintiff has failed to disclose any cause of action and the Suit itself is not maintainable. 27. The defendant Nos. 4, 5, 7 to 13 have not appeared or contested the Suit. 28. Submissions heard. 29. The applicant/plaintiff has filed the Suit for Damages in the sum of Rs. 2,00,00,100/- in addition to Permanent and Mandatory Injunction for directing the defendants for removal of objectionable X posts/Tweets and videos from the social media platforms. 30. This Suit relates to an unsavoury incident of 20.03.2024, when the applicant/plaintiff in his robes had appeared in a Court in Gautambudh Nagar, despite there being a strike of the lawyers. According to plaintiff, when he was apprised by the Officers of Gautambudh Nagar Bar Association that they had called for the strike, he agreed readily for the adjournment of the matter, which, in fact, was adjourned despite which he was manhandled by one particular local lawyer and his Advocate's Band was snatched. This incident was reported extensively on various social media platforms and also became a topic of debate by various....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re by injunction before the trial of an action to prevent an anticipated wrong. The right of free speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should possess, and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment, so long as no wrongful act is done; and, unless an alleged libel is untrue, there is no wrong committed; but, on the contrary, often a very wholesome act is performed in the publication and repetition of an alleged libel. Until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at all has been infringed; and the importance of leaving free speech unfettered is a strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of interim injunctions." 35. In Fraser vs. Evans, (1969) 1 Q.B. 349, the Court of Appeal followed the Bonnard Principle and observed as under:- "... in so far as the article will be defamatory of Mr. Fraser, it is clear he cannot get an injunction. The Court will not restrain the publication of an article, even though it is defamatory, when the defendant says he intends to justify it or to make fair comment on a matter of public interest. That has been established f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y reasons, should not be granted. If Court Orders were to routinely stifle debate, what cannot be done by law by the State, would be achieved indirectly without satisfying exacting constitutional standards that permit infractions on the valuable Right to Freedom of Speech. 38. On the similar lines, in the case of Indu Jain (supra) it was observed that people occupying public position have to accept that their actions would be more closely scrutinised by the media. 39. The Apex Court in the case of Amish Devgan vs. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1 referred to Subramanian Swamy (supra), wherein it had been ruled that dignity is the quintessential quality of personality and a basic constituent along with honour and reputation of the rights guaranteed and protected under Article 21. Dignity is a part of the individual rights that form the fundamental fulcrum of collective harmony and interest of a society. While right to speech and expression is absolutely sacrosanct in the sense that it is essential for individual growth and progress of democracy which recognises voice of dissent, tolerance for discordant notes and acceptance of different voices, albeit the right to equality under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed to be defamed or disrepute brought to him on the ground of Right of Free Speech and Expression. A thin line of distinction exists between defamation and public criticism and an onerous task lies with the Courts to maintain this delicate balance between the competing claims and rights. 43. Here is the case where the applicant/plaintiff while being a public figure, had only been discharging his professional duty in appearing in a Court of law to defend a litigant. The manhandling of the applicant/plaintiff and snatching of his Advocate's band while appearing in the Court is the most condemnable act, as has also been observed by the Apex Court while taking suo motu cognizance of this matter. The Right to Legal Aid for Representation before the Court is again a constitutional right protected under Article 21 and entails a corresponding duty on the legal professionals to discharge their obligations in the most diligent matter, to best of their capabilities. The Advocates may have been on strike in the Court at Gautambudh Nagar, but what is pertinent is that when informed, the plaintiff agreed for an adjournment which was, in fact, granted. In these circumstances, pulling his Ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that would result from these videos and X posts/Tweets etc., continuing to remain in public domain, has the potential to cause an inconvenience which may not be possible to be reparated or compensated by damages or otherwise, in future. 47. It has been argued that granting any relief of injunction at this stage, it would amount to decreeing the Suit. This argument is fallacious on the face of it since an injunction is to prevent harm in the future and not to redress the past deeds. 48. In this context, it may be noted that the status of the following videos which are sought to be injuncted as follows: - S. No. Particulars Remarks 1. Document - 1: True Screenshot of YouTube video dated 20.03.2024, titled "पुलिस वकीलों से छुड़ाती गौरव भाटिया की धुलाई हो चुकी Navin Kumar" uploaded by Defendant No. 1 Video made private, not to be made public. 2. Document-2: True Transcript of YouTube video dated 20.03.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endant No. 5 Video taken down, Not Contesting. 8. Document-8: True transcript of YouTube video dated 20.03.2024, titled " Gaurav Bhatiya के साथ वकीलों ने की नोक झोंक, Gaurav Bhatiya funny memes viral video" uploaded by Defendant No. 5 9. Document-9: True Screenshots of posts by Defendant No. 6 (@ActivistSandeep) dated 20.03.2024 Contested. 10. Document-10: True Screenshots of posts by Defendant No. 7 (@yadavvijay88) dated 20.03.2024 No Appearance, Not contested. 11. Document-11: True Screenshots of posts by Defendant No. 8 (@NetaFlixIndia) dated 20.03.2024 No Appearance, Not contested. 12. Document-12: True Screenshots of posts by Defendant No. 9 (@sunmor2901) dated 20.03.2024 Not Contested. 13. Document-13: True Screenshots of posts by Defendant No. 10 (@GURUJI_123)dated 20.03.2024 No Appearance, Not contested. 14. Document-14: True Screenshots of posts by Defendant No. 11(@DawoodNadaf10) dated 20.03.2024 Not contested. Video made p....