TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 herein. 2. In this appeal, the parties herein shall be referred to as described in the plaint. 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudicating the present appeal are: The plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions along with damages, inter alia, alleging that he is a professional banker with an unblemished career spanning over seventeen years, having worked with reputed international banking institutions, and that he enjoys a high standing and reputation in the society. In August 2023, the plaintiff was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (the ED) in connection with proceedings arising out of alleged irregularities relating to M/s Moser Baer India Limited, pursuant to which several news reports were published by various media houses and digital platforms, including the defendants, reporting his arrest and associating his name with the alleged offence. 3.1. According to the plaintiff, although the impugned news reports were published at different points of time, they continued to remain accessible on digital platforms and search engines, thereby perpetuating an impre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re published on 27.10.2023 and 19.08.2024 respectively. However, the suit was filed only on 06.10.2025, which is beyond the prescribed limitation period. The learned counsel contended that mere continued availability of the archived content does not give rise to continuing cause of action, and subsequent updates reporting the plaintiff's discharge, being favourable to him, could not constitute a fresh publication so as to revive a time-barred claim. 6.1. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the impugned news reports constituted fair, accurate and bona fide reporting of judicial proceedings and actions of law enforcement authorities, based on official press releases and court orders and were protected by qualified privilege. It was submitted that every factual assertion in the reports was demonstrably true, including the plaintiff's arrest, prosecution, and subsequent discharge, and that truth is a complete defence to an action for defamation. The second defendant in exercise of their fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution had published the articles. The freedom of press is the freedom of the public to be informed about matters relating to public in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of defamation, and that the plaintiff is entitled to maintain such reliefs independently once the criminal proceedings against him have culminated in exoneration. 8.1. The learned counsel emphasised that this is not a case where the plaintiff was discharged on a technical ground, but one where the entire criminal proceedings against the plaintiff were found to be baseless and stood dismissed. It was submitted further that the plaintiff was discharged on 17.08.2024 and, thereafter, the entire case was dismissed on 24.07.2025, and neither order has been stayed nor set aside by any court. C.S. No. 510/2025 was instituted on 06.10.2025, shortly thereafter. It was urged that the plaintiff has acted with due diligence and vigilance, and therefore neither limitation nor laches can be invoked to defeat the reliefs sought on the grounds of right to be forgotten. The continued online availability of the impugned articles after such exoneration perpetuates a stigma and violates the plaintiff's right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (the Constitution). 8.2. To augment the contention of the right to be forgotten, the learned counsel placed reliance on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the continued prominence of such reportage is disproportionate and unjustified. 8.5. On the question of balance of convenience, the learned counsel submitted that the prejudice caused to the plaintiff by continued online availability of the impugned articles far outweighs any inconvenience to defendant no. 2. It was urged that the relief sought pertains only to a limited number of articles concerning individuals who stand exonerated and does not amount to a blanket restraint on press freedom. Reliance was placed on the dictum of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del3373, to submit that even if pleadings are not artfully worded, substantive rights expressly housed in the plaint ought not to be defeated on technical grounds, particularly when denial of relief would cause greater prejudice to one party. 8.6. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the scope of interference under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC is limited, and an appellate court ought not to substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court unless the impugned order is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. Reliance was placed on Wander Ltd. v. Antox Indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e plaintiff has approached the civil court shortly after the culmination of the criminal proceedings in his favour. In such circumstances this Court is unable to accept the contention of defendant no. 2 that the suit is barred by limitation as per Article 75 of the Limitation Act. 13. As far as the second issue is concerned, the decision of a Larger Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Dejo Kappan (supra) (of which Bench I was also a member) has squarely addressed the conflict between the freedom of press and right to dignity. It has been held in unequivocal terms that while the media enjoys freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, such right is not absolute and stands correspondingly delimited by the right of an individual to dignity and reputation traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution. It has been observed that in appropriate cases, particularly where continued dissemination of content results in disproportionate harm to an individual, the right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution must yield to the right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 14. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, this Court finds that the ....