Delhi High Court: In a suit for defamation filed by journalist Rajat Sharma (plaintiff) against members of the All India Congress Committee (‘AICC’) for circulating tweets and doctored videos of him accusing him of using abusive language, Neena Bansal Krishna, J., granted ad interim injunction and ordered the videos and tweets be removed from the social media that was tarnishing the reputation of Rajat Sharma, while remarking that individual dignity and honour of a person cannot be allowed to be defamed or disrepute brought to him on the ground of Right of Free Speech and Expression.
Background
Rajat Sharma is a renowned news presenter and anchor who has hosted inter alia ‘APP KI ADALAT’ which is the longest running television show in India. It has been alleged by Rajat Sharma that certain persons from the AICC made defamatory statements against him.
The defendants in this case consists of various social media platforms and members of the AICC. Specifically, the defendant 1 to 3 were X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and Facebook, respectively. Defendant 4 to 6 were members of the AICC, where Defendant 4 was the General Secretary In-charge, Communications, AICC, Defendant 5 was the Chairman of the Media and Publicity Department, AICC, and Defendant 6 was a spokesperson of AICC.
On 04-06-2024, during a live debate on India TV Channel anchored by Rajat Sharma, a discussion regarding the results of the Lok Sabha General Election, 2024 took place. During this debate, defendant 6 expressed her views on the election results and did not make any other comments or object to any alleged language used by Sharma or other anchors.
Rajat Sharma was aggrieved by allegedly defamatory statements made by defendants 4 to 6 on 10-06-2024 and 11-06-2024, as they posted on X and held a press conference, accusing Rajat Sharma of using abusive language against defendant 6 during the live telecast on 04-06-2024. The defendants posted an edited video claiming it to be the ‘Raw Footage’ of the debate, however, Rajat Sharma contended that he did not use any abusive language and that the original footage would prove the allegations false.
Rajat Sharma asserted that defendant 6’s actions were orchestrated by defendant 4 with the intent to malign his reputation and career. On 10-06-2024, Rajat Sharma saw the false accusations on X (Twitter) and learned that defendant 6 admitted during a press conference that neither she nor her party conducted any independent verification of the video’s authenticity. The video uploaded by defendant 6 was edited to include abusive words, which were not present in the original live telecast.
A four-minute clip of the debated program was played in the Court to demonstrate that no abusive language was used by Rajat Sharma as alleged by defendants. It was further submitted by Rajat Sharma that the insertion of false information in the news item was evident from the video and that the widespread dissemination of the defamatory material on popular platforms like YouTube and X had resulted in significant engagement and potential harm to his reputation and livelihood. Thus, he the present suit has been filed praying for an ad interim ex parte injunction against all defendants and a direction for removal of the defamatory content.
Decision and Analysis
In the decision of the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225, the circumstances justifying the grant of an ad interim injunction were discussed. Considering the facts of the current case, the Court acknowledged that Rajat Sharma was indeed a senior journalist distinguished in his field. The Court noted that Rajat Sharma, being a public figure, was merely performing his professional duties during a debate on the Lok Sabha Elections. However, the footage shown in Court revealed that Sharma had intervened only briefly and did not use abusive language.
The Court observed the delicate balance between public criticism and defamation, noting that while the threshold for public criticism and alleged defamatory posts is high, individual dignity and honour cannot be compromised under the guise of free speech. The Court further said that although freedom of speech and expression is crucial for democracy, it must be balanced with the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to dignity under Article 21.
The Court found that despite the absence of abuse by Rajat Sharma, the subsequent videos falsely depicted him using abusive language, which appeared to be a deliberate misrepresentation aimed at damaging his reputation.
Thus, the Court held that allowing the posts and videos to remain in the public domain would cause irreparable harm to Rajat Sharma’s reputation. The Court, therefore, while allowing the application, ordered that the subject tweets and videos be removed within seven days as per the Intermediary Guidelines, and further directed that the videos be made private and not be republished without the Court’s order.
[Rajat Sharma v. X Corp, (Formerly Twitter), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4399, decided on 14-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for the plaintiff: Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Sandeep Chatterjee, Rohan Swarup, Kunal Vats, Sanyam Suri, Tanya Arora, Advocates
