0

Supreme Court dismisses a defamation case against the newspaper owner for a report against an advocate, citing the publication as being done in good faith.

Case Title: Sanjay Upadhya v.  Anand Dubey

Case No: SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020

Decided on:  29th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Facts of the Case

A defamation case was lodged against the proprietor of the ‘Sunday Blast’ daily newspaper situated in Madhya Pradesh. The case stemmed from a 2013 article titled “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” (Advocate files false case against Pan Masala trader). Despite the initial dismissal of the complaint by the Judicial Magistrate, the Sessions Court reinstated it. The Madhya Pradesh High Court subsequently affirmed the reinstatement, leading the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue

The central issue in this case pertains to a defamation complaint against the owner of the ‘Sunday Blast’ newspaper, focusing on an article titled “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” (Advocate files false case against Pan Masala trader) published in 2013.

Legal Provision

According to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. This implies that all citizens have the right to express their views and opinions freely.

According Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a criminal defamation case against a newspaper owner related to an article about an advocate. The court upheld the Magistrate’s decision, which cited the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, concurring with the Magistrate, affirmed that the news article was published in good faith, exercising the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Magistrate’s decision was neither illegal nor unjustified, and there is no need for intervention by the Sessions Court or the High Court. Consequently, all proceedings based on the complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code were quashed against the accused appellant.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

0

Journalist & YouTuber is directed to remove video on Ram Rahim Singh as it is prima facie defamatory: Delhi HC

Case Title: Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan Shishayeva Gaddinashin Shah Satnam Singh Ji Maharaj v. Youtube LLC and Anr

Case No: CS (OS) No. 887 of 2023

Decided on:  30th December, 2023

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

Facts of the Case

Ram Rahim initiated the lawsuit against Singh, asserting that the narration and content of the video posted on journalist and YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh’s YouTube channel are inherently misleading and defamatory. Ram Rahim expressed concern that the video was uploaded with the explicit intention of subjecting him to a media trial, aiming to declare him guilty in the public eye even before his appeals are heard and determined by the competent court.

Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, representing Ram Rahim Singh, argued that the video, accessible worldwide to devotees, poses a threat to his right to a fair trial. He also contended that the timing of the video’s release is suspicious, coinciding with the imminent hearing of Singh’s appeal against his conviction.

Contrarily, the legal representative for Shyam Meera Singh asserted that the entire video either cites material from the trial court’s judgment or presents content from the book authored by Anurag Tripathi.

Issue

Whether the content of the video posted on journalist and YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh’s YouTube channel seems to be prima facie defamatory vis-à-vis the plaintiff?

Court’s analysis and decision

The Delhi High Court has instructed journalist and YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh to remove a video he created about Dera Saccha Sauda Chief Ram Rahim Singh from all social media platforms. Justice Jasmeet Singh stated that the video appears to be defamatory towards the plaintiff (Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh) based on prima facie evidence. Nevertheless, the court has allowed the journalist the freedom to upload a new video, provided it includes a disclaimer acknowledging that its content is sourced from the trial court judgment on Rahim’s conviction and the book titled “Dera Sacha Sauda and Gurmeet Ram Rahim” by Anurag Tripathi.

Within a 24-hour timeframe, the court mandated Singh to take down the video from all social media platforms. Justice Singh issued this directive while adjudicating an application for an interim injunction in the defamation lawsuit initiated by Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. The court observed that the video incorporated content derived from the trial court’s judgment and featured excerpts from the book. Nonetheless, it was emphasized that the video lacked a disclaimer.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

0

Sameet Thakkar is liable for Contempt of Court, fined ₹1 Lakh for defamatory tweets against T.V. Today Network: Delhi High Court

Case Title: T.V. Today Network Limited v. Sameet Thakkar & Anr.

Case No: CS(OS) 123/2020

Decided on:  20th December, 2023

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

Facts of the Case

Initially, an application was filed by the plaintiff seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 & 2 from publishing, posting defamatory/derogatory statements against the plaintiff on any social media platforms. The High Court of Delhi had vide its orders dated 06.05.2020, 08.05.2020 and 18.11.2020, issued certain interim directions against the defendants, which orders are continuing as on date.

Subsequently, an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC. An application filed by the defendant no.1 with a prayer to revoke the interim order dated 06.05.2020 as read with 08.05.2020. An application filed by the defendant no.1 seeking clarification of the order dated 18.11.2020. An application filed by the plaintiff for taking appropriate action against the defendant no.1 for having blatantly disobeyed the directions issued vide order dated 06.05.2020.

Learned counsel for the defendant no.1 submits that the said defendant is not willing to amicably resolve the matter and is therefore not agreeable to file any affidavit to undertake that he will not publish any defamatory tweets against the plaintiff/company or its management in the future.

Legal Provision

The provision of Chapter XXIII Rule 1 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules outlines the authority granted to the Court, Registrar General, or Registrar to impose costs on a party if the Court determines that the party is abusing the judicial process or engaging in conduct that is dilatory, vexatious, mala fide, or an abuse of the legal process. In such cases, the Court has the discretion to require the offending party to make a deposit or upfront payment, as directed by the Court, to cover the costs associated with their improper conduct.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant no.1 is guilty of having committed Contempt of Court for making defamatory tweets against T.V. Today Network Ltd despite restraint orders?
  2. Whether the said defendant is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh?

Court’s analysis and decision

The Delhi High Court observed and has held that X i.e., the formerly Twitter user is guilty of committing contempt of court for making the ‘defamatory tweets’ made against the TV Today Network despite the restraint orders passed against him in the year 2020. Justice Rekha Palli has directed the Sameet Thakkar to pay the fine for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh, while taking into account that the offending tweets were removed by him and that he had tendered an unconditional apology for making the said tweets. When the party knowingly acts in violation of the judicial directions, it would be against the interest of justice to simply accept Thakkar’s oral apology and that too without any explanation for having made the tweets despite restraint orders. The conduct of defendant no.1 shows that he has been utterly defiant of the orders passed by the said Court.

The court stated that this being the fit case where costs should be imposed on the defendant no.1 under Chapter XXIII Rule 1 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules. At the request of the defendant, the case is listed to be heard on 01.04.2024.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click to read the judgement 

0

Madras High Court directed the trail court to consider the petitioners grounds in a case of defamation and Dispose it in 3 months.

TITLE. L. Murugan Vs. Murasoli Trust.

Decided On: September 5, 2023.

Criminal Original Petition No.10277 & Crl.M.P.No.6094 of 2022. 

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.  

Facts:

The petitioner is the former State President of the Bharatiya Janata Party and presently, he is the Minister of State in the Central Government. Certain alleged defamatory statements were made by the petitioner when he attended a press meet on 28.12.2020. The Respondent appealed that the statements were made by the petitioner with an ulterior motive to degrade and tarnish the reputation of the Murasoli Trust in the eyes of the general public. After the said statements were made by the petitioner in the press meet and they were published in the newspapers, a legal notice dated 29.12.2020 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to withdraw the defamatory statements and to tender unconditional apology. The petitioner, in spite of receiving the said legal notice, failed to respond to the same. The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offences under Sections and 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the petitioner appealed this Court.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The petitioner passed a comment in the press conference that the Murasoli Trust is functioning in the panchami land. The Respondents Stated that the petitioner was again and again trying to project as if the Murasoli Trust is functioning in a property without any right or title and thereby the petitioner was intentionally causing loss of reputation to the Murasoli Trust in the mind of the general public. In an offence of defamation, the statements have to be tested only from the point of view of a common prudent man, who comes across the defamatory statements made. Even if the petitioner thinks that there was no imputation and that he had merely put a question, such statements will be understood by others as if the petitioner is repeatedly questioning the right and title of the property, over which, the Murasoli Trust is functioning and he also wants to drive home the point that it is functioning in the panchami land. That is how the respondent has understood the statements made by the petitioner and even in the complaint, the allegations have been made to the effect that many others had understood it in the same manner and started making enquiries with the respondent. The petitioner made statements during a press meet and they were also published in the newspapers the next day. Hence, there is no difficulty in rendering a finding that the second limb of the ingredients under Section 499 of the IPC is also satisfied.The respondent has taken a very specific stand that the complaint was given against the petitioner to address the legal injury of reputation suffered by the respondent. To substantiate the same, necessary allegations have also been made in the complaint touching upon the intention and motive of the petitioner in making such statements. The Court did not inclined to quash the impugned proceedings at this stage.

Conclusion:

The Court directed the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Court for Trail of cases related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai to dispose of C.C.No.47 of 2021 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Petitioner can raise all the grounds before the Trail Court and the same will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. The observations, if any, contained in this order will not have any bearing on the Trial Court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court imposes a fine of Rupees ONE Lakh on Youtuber as Contempt.

CASE TITLE:  V. Senthil Balaji Vs. Shankar

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU.

Date of Decison:         Reserved on 20.03.2023

                                   Delivered on 16.06.2023

CITATION:  A.No.1045 of 2023 in C.S.No.172 of 2022

INTRODUCTION:

The case of V.Senthil Balaji Vs. A.Shankar is a defamation case filed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Minister V Senthil Balaji against YouTuber Savukku Shankar. In August 2022, Senthil Balaji filed a petition in the Madras High Court seeking an injunction against Shankar from making any defamatory statements against him on social media.The court granted the injunction and restrained Shankar from making any such statements.

                                   However, Shankar continued to make derogatory statements against Senthil Balaji on social media. In February 2023, Senthil Balaji filed a contempt petition against Shankar in the Madras High Court. The court found Shankar guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on him.

FACTS:

The case was filed by V. Senthil Balaji, a Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu, against Shankar alias Savukku Shankar, a YouTuber. Shankar had made a number of videos and statements about Balaji on his YouTube channel, alleging that he was corrupt and had engaged in various wrongdoings. In these videos and posts, Shankar made a number of defamatory statements about Senthil Balaji, including allegations that he was corrupt, had links to the underworld, and had been involved in the death of a former colleague. Balaji claimed that these statements were defamatory and that they had damaged his reputation.

ISSUES:

  • The main issue in the case was whether Shankar’s statements were defamatory.
  • If they were defamatory, then Balaji was entitled to an injunction restraining Shankar from making further statements.

LEGAL ANALYSIS: 

Senthil Balaji’s case:  Senthil Balaji filed a petition in the Madras High Court seeking an injunction against Shankar from making any further defamatory statements about him. He argued that Shankar’s statements had damaged his reputation and caused him considerable distress. He also argued that Shankar’s statements were false and malicious.

Counter Case of Shankar:  Shankar defended his actions by arguing that he was entitled to freedom of speech. He argued that he was simply reporting on matters of public interest and that his statements were true. He also argued that Senthil Balaji was a public figure and that he should therefore be more tolerant of criticism.

Decision of the Madras High Court:

The Madras High Court granted Senthil Balaji’s petition and issued an injunction restraining Shankar from making any further defamatory statements about him. The court found that Shankar’s statements were false and malicious and that they had caused Senthil Balaji considerable distress. The court also found that Shankar’s statements were not protected by freedom of speech because they were not made in the public interest. There are a few ways to protect freedom of speech in the face of defamatory statements about public figures. One way is to have strong anti-SLAPP laws in place. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation, and these laws are designed to protect people from being sued for defamation when they speak out about matters of public interest.

Since the conduct of the respondent was very much negligent without any remorse impinging upon the majesty of the Court, The court  direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, within a period of four weeks from today. He shall also file an affidavit of undertaking that in future he shall guard himself against violating any orders passed by any Court, or even make any comments which may impinge the majesty of the Courts. Such affidavit shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today.

CONCLUSION:

The V.Senthil Balaji Vs. A.Shankar case is a landmark case that sets a precedent for the protection of the reputation of public figures from defamatory statements made on social media. The case also highlights the importance of freedom of speech and the need to balance it with the right to privacy and reputation. Since the Respondent act was “Contempt”, is the crime of being disobedient to order passed by court it imposed a fine of Rupees 1 lakh to the Youtuber.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

Click here to view Judgement

1 2