#defamation Archives - Prime Legal

20 Jun

Gujarat HC Judge to watch movie ‘Maharaj’ to see if it hurt Religious Sentiments

Uncategorized #centralboardoffilmcertificate, #defamation, #Gujrat High court, #india #religion #anti-conversionlaw #freedomofreligion #liberty #constitution, #Libel, #SupremeCourt

The Gujarat High Court ordered on Wednesday to see the film ‘Maharaj’ to assess if it offends the religious emotions of the Pustimargi sect. It is set to be released on Netflix. Justice Sangeeta Vishen stated that if the court determines that there was nothing in the video that damaged religious emotions, the matter will be closed. “You are only concerned if the movie is hurting the religious feelings of a particular sect or not,” the court said senior lawyer Mihir Joshi, who represented the petitioners.

The film, starring Aamir Khan’s son Junaid Khan and Jaideep Ahlawat, is based on a landmark libel case filed in 1862 by a prominent Vaishnavite figure, Jadunathji, against journalist and social reformer Karsandas Mulji, who had written against sexual exploitation by the all-powerful Maharaj. Mulji’s exposé of the exploitative practice in his magazine The Satyaprakash sparked a libel suit that became known as the Maharaj Libel Case. On June 13, the Supreme Court halted Netflix’s release of the film, prompting the streaming giant and producer Yash Raj Films to seek redress.

The petitioners, including the Pustimargi sect, sought orders against the film’s release on the assumption that it portrayed the Vaishnav sect in a negative light, was likely to “incite feelings of hatred and violence” against the sect, and may “hurt public sentiments at large with its reportedly controversial depiction of certain characters and practices”. The bench, which began hearing detailed arguments in the case on Tuesday, accepted the production house’s offer to play the film for the court on Wednesday and requested that the other stakeholders to achieve an agreement on this issue.

An hour later, veteran lawyer Mihir Joshi, who represented the petitioners, said he was on board. “The court may review the movie to determine if it is defamatory. We have no commercial interests against Netflix or Yash Raj Films.” Please watch it. If the film does not disparage our religion, allow it to be screened in public. Joshi stated, “We don’t want to stretch the matter at all.”
Shalin Mehta, who represented Yash Raj Films, stated that the production house intended to continue the matter on the maintainability of the petition regardless of the outcome of the screening, pointing out that his client was losing money for each day that the film was delayed in being released.

The bench, on the other hand, dismissed the argument, stating that the filmmakers received approval from the Central Board of Film Certification in May 2023. “There were no rules or laws that prevented the film from being released. But you had to wait until June 14th. So one day here or there may not have a big impact,” she explained.

Mehta attempted to reassure the petitioners that the video covered the trial rather than the judgement. In response to allegations that Supreme Court of Bombay judges made blasphemous remarks against Lord Krishna and devotional songs in 1862, the film does not read any lines from the judgement, except that the case was dismissed after 32 witnesses were examined.

“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: Abhishek singh

9 May

Political Influence Neglects Education’s Core Purpose in Colleges, Creating Hostile Environment Detrimental to Student Well-being: Calcutta High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #CalcuttaHC, #defamation

Case Title: Dr. Sima Banerjee vs. Dr. Barnali Chattopadhyay

Case No.: CRR 922 of 2022

Dated on: May 02, 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble J. Shampa Dutt (Paul)

Facts of the Case:

Dr. Sima Banerjee, the petitioner, was appointed as the Principal of Hooghly Women’s College in 2015. She was accused by Dr. Barnali Chattopadhyay, the Opposite Party, of spreading false rumours and making derogatory remarks about her in a public interview in 2018. The accusations stemmed from tensions between the petitioner and the Students’ Union, which opposed her appointment. The petitioner had previously filed a defamation case against a student who had falsely accused her of misconduct. The High Court of Calcutta quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, citing lack of evidence to support the defamation charges.

Issues framed by the Court:

Whether the allegations made against the petitioner constitute the offense of defamation under Sections 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code?
Whether the statements made by the petitioner fall under any of the exceptions provided in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code?
Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner should be quashed based on the absence of ingredients required to constitute the alleged offenses?
Whether the actions of the petitioner were in accordance with professional standards expected from college teachers, considering the hostile atmosphere in the educational institution?
Whether the petitioner’s statements made in an interview come within the ambit of the ninth exception under Section 499 IPC, thereby absolving the petitioner from the alleged offenses?
Whether the petitioner’s petition for quashing the proceedings should be allowed?

Legal Provisions:

Section 499 of IPC: Deals with defamation in either oral or written format in order to harm the reputation of a person.

Section 500 of IPC: Punishment for defamation.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The contention of the appellant, Dr. Sima Banerjee, is that she has been falsely implicated in a criminal case by Dr. Barnali Chattopadhyay, the opposite party. She argues that the allegations against her are baseless and motivated by political influence. Further, she claims that the complaints made against her are in retaliation to a previous case that she filed against an influential member of the Students’ Union. Moreover, Dr. Banerjee asserts that her statements, which are the subject of the defamation case, fall under the ninth exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, as they were made in good faith for the protection of her own interests or for the public good. Consequently, she seeks the quashing of the proceedings against her.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The main contention of the respondent, Dr. Barnali Chattopadhyay is that she was being defamed by the appellant, herein Dr. Sima, who made certain dishonest and derogatory statements in the public forum against her, that was specifically aired on television. Further, she claimed that these statements were made with an intention to cause harm to her reputation. It was argued that the actions of the appellant do constitute the commission of the act prescribed under Sections 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment:

Upon the analysis of the case herein between the aforementioned parties it was determined that the petitioner, Dr. Sima, was accused of making false and derogatory statements about Dr. Barnali in a public interview. However, the court found that the statements made by Dr. Sima fell under the ninth exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, which safeguards the statements made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or for the public good. Therefore, the court allowed the revision and quashed the proceedings against Dr. Sima Banerjee, concluding that the ingredients required to constitute the offenses alleged were absent.

Judgement Reviewed by- Shramana Sengupta

Click here to read the judgement

2 Feb

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.

Prime Legal

Blog #defamation, #SupremeCourt

Case Title: Sanjay Upadhya v. Anand Dubey

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

Decided on: 29^th 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.

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

11 Jan

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

Prime Legal

Blog #civilcase, #defamation, #delhihighcourt, #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: 30^th 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.

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

9 Jan

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

Prime Legal

Blog #contemptof court, #defamation, #delhihighcourt, #tweet

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

Case No: CS(OS) 123/2020

Decided on: 20^th 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

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?
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.

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click to read the judgement

1 2