Delhi High Court: The plaintiff seeks ad interim ex parte injunction thereby directing Defendants 14 and 15, Google LLC and X (Twitter), respectively, to take down the posts/videos of Defendants 1 to 13 from the platform of Defendants 14 and 15 and also ad interim ex parte injunction against Defendants 1 to 13 thereby restraining them and their agents, representatives, associates, heirs, relatives etc., to cease and desist from posting any derogatory and harmful material on social media platforms, including on the platforms of Defendants 14 and 15 pertaining to plaintiff, during the pendency of the present suit. Neena Bansal Krishna, J.*, considering the imminent threat of misuse of the deepfake videos in future, which were prima facie depicting plaintiff being beaten up, which might not be true, opined that the videos were liable to be restrained from being kept in the public domain till the suit was finally decided.
Background
Plaintiff is a Senior Advocate and had earlier served as Honorary Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association. Plaintiff also held the position of National Spokesperson in the Bhartiya Janta Party (‘BJP’) and played a crucial role in representing BJP’s views and communicating its policies and initiatives to the public. Plaintiff submitted that the defamatory videos published on various social media platforms had amassed millions of views and thousands of likes from the public, signaling significant engagement and the potential for considerable harm to plaintiff’s reputation, livelihood, and overall well-being due to the widespread dissemination of defamatory material on YouTube. Plaintiff submitted that he had a good prima facie case in his favour and irreparable damage would be caused to him if the defamatory X posts/Tweets and YouTube videos were allowed to remain on the Internet.
Plaintiff submitted that the Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the incident and it had not only been decried the practice of strikes of lawyers but had also taken judicial notice of plaintiff’s band being pulled, and nothing beyond that had happened. Plaintiff submitted that thus, there was absolutely no chance of defendants succeeding in the trial as objectionable YouTube videos and X posts/Tweets had been set out in public domain showing that plaintiff was beaten up by the lawyers in the Court at Gautambudh Nagar where plaintiff had gone to represent Elvish Yadav, an infamous YouTuber, who was accused of peddling snake poison at Rave parties.
It was also being projected that 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 TV debates and that the legal fraternity hates the alleged conceited attitude of plaintiff for which reason, he was assaulted. Plaintiff was also subjected to downright abusive language which was liable to be injuncted and some deepfake videos were also posted which were liable to be removed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that “in the suits of defamation against media platforms or Journalists, an additional consideration of balance in the Fundamental Right to Free Speech with the Right to Reputation and Privacy, must be borne in mind. The constitutional mandate of protecting journalistic expression cannot be understated and the Courts must tread cautiously while granting interim injunctions”.
The Court relied on Bloomberg Television Production Services India (P) Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 426, wherein the Supreme Court observed that “the grant of a pre-trial injunction against the publication of an article may have severe ramifications on the Right to Freedom of Speech of the Author and the public’s Right to Know. An injunction, particularly, ex parte should not be granted without establishing that the contents sought to be restricted is malicious or palpably false”. The Court also relied on Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1956 SCC OnLine SC 36, wherein it was observed that “those who fill public positions must not be too thin-skinned in respect of references made upon them”.
The Court opined that while the threshold of public criticism and alleged defamatory X posts/tweets on social media platforms were much higher, but the individual dignity and honour of a person could not be allowed to be defamed or disrepute brought to him on the ground of Right of Free Speech and Expression. A thin line of distinction existed between defamation and public criticism and an onerous task lies with the Courts to maintain this delicate balance between the competing claims and rights.
The Court opined that plaintiff in the present case, while being a public figure, had only been discharging his professional duty by appearing in a Court to defend a litigant. The manhandling of plaintiff and snatching of his Advocate’s band while appearing in the Court was the most condemnable act, as was also observed by the Supreme Court while taking suo motu cognizance of this matter. The Court also opined that the Advocates might have been on strike in the Court at Gautambudh Nagar, but what was pertinent was that when informed, plaintiff agreed for an adjournment which was, in fact, granted. Thus, pulling his Band or manhandling him, were most reprehensible/condemnable act committed upon him.
The Court further opined that the press and the media had a duty to report the incident for the benefit of the public, but there was also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The deepfake videos showing plaintiff and his claims being beaten up, were nothing but an over-sensationalisation and depiction of facts which were patently false. Thus, prima facie dissemination or playing of deepfake videos had not only caused harm to the reputation of plaintiff, but also had the potential of persistent threat of being aired and used against plaintiff at any time in future. Such being the imminent threat of misuse of the videos in future, which were prima facie depicting plaintiff in a light which might not be the true facts, was liable to be restrained from being kept in the public domain till the suit was finally decided.
The Court opined that the balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff for the simple reason that by making these videos private or injuncting them from being available on the public platforms, would not, in any way, infringe on the rights of defendants of freedom of speech and expression which they could, in any case, exercise within the defined parameters. However, the inconvenience that would result from these videos and X posts/Tweets etc., continuing to remain in public domain, had the potential to cause an inconvenience which might not be possible to be compensated by damages or otherwise, in future.
Thus, the Court disposed of the application and directed that the X Posts/Tweets which had not been removed, be removed within seven days by Defendants 6 to 13 in terms of the Intermediary Guidelines. It was further directed that the videos which were in the public domain be made private by Defendant 14 and not to be put in the public domain, without the Orders of this Court.
The matter would next be listed on 2-5-2024 before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings.
[Gaurav Bhatia v. Naveen Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2704, decided on 16-4-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate; Utkarsh Jaiswal, Vikas Tiwari, Raghav Awasthi, Mukesh Sharma, Advocates
For the Defendants: Hemraj Singh, Mehood Pracha, Sanawar, Jatin Bhatt, Ruman Ali, Askim Naeem, Muzakkir Zama, Aditya Gupta, Aishwarya Kan, Sauhard Alung, Advocates
