Delhi High Court: In a suit filed for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants to take down/remove various false and defamatory, malicious, and unsubstantiated articles and videos containing allegations that had been made to tarnish Dhanya Rajendran’s (plaintiff 1) reputation, a Single Judge Bench of Vikas Mahajan, J. held that the plaintiffs had made a case for the grant of ad interim relief and directed the defendants to take down/remove/restrict access/block the URLs of the posts and videos containing defamatory statements against the plaintiffs within ten days.
Background
The present suit was filed to seek mandatory and permanent injunction as well as to prohibit the publication/re-publication/sharing of any further material of similar nature against the plaintiffs.
It was contended that Dhanya Rajendran was a journalist of repute and that over the last 20 years, she had earned various national and international awards for her journalism. In 2013, Dhanya Rajendran founded “The News Minute”, a digital news platform based in Bangalore, Karnataka wherein she was the co-founder and Editor-in-chief.
It was also contended that Dhanya Rajendran was one of the entrepreneurs in Fortune Magazine’s 40 under 40 and was also awarded ‘Namma Bengaluru Media Person of the Year’ in 2017.
It was submitted that plaintiff 2 was a registered company and a voluntary association of over 100 digital media organizations and independent journalists that aimed to help and ensure the creation of healthy and robust news ecosystems for the digital age. It was also submitted that plaintiff 2 was registered with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as a level-II ‘Self-Regulatory Body’ in terms of Rule 12 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
It was submitted that Dhanya Rajendran along with other independent media channels partnered with Kerala Media Academy in Kochi hosted a conclave titled “Cutting South 2023” on 25-03-2023. This event was sponsored in part by the Canadian Government under a Sponsorship Agreement dated 28-02-2023.
It was submitted defendant 1 operated a news/media channel named ‘The Karma News’ whereas defendant 2 operated a news/media channel named ‘Janam TV’. It was submitted that defendant 3 ran a newspaper by the name of ‘Janambhumi’.
It was further submitted that to date, the defendants had published deceptive, false, malicious, defamatory, and distorted posts along with articles on their websites as well as their YouTube channels in respect to the ‘Cutting South’ event.
It was contended that the essence of the assertions and allegations made by the defendants reflected that the plaintiffs were agents of George Soros, an international entity, who was found to have been giving funds to online media in the country through plaintiff 2 which was headed by Dhanya Rajendran.
The allegations further reflected that the plaintiffs were acting as conduits of foreign money to disrupt the country and that the plaintiffs sought to cut and divide the South.
Analysis and Decision
After going through the transcripts of the YouTube videos, the Court found that there was substance in the submissions made by the plaintiffs that the alleged videos and posts contained defamatory and libelous allegations made recklessly without regard to the truth, to injure the reputation of the plaintiffs.
The Court noted that it was alleged that the central agencies had got information regarding the anti-national activities of Dhanya Rajendran and that as per them, she was the main intermediary in arranging funds for the same. It was further noted that plaintiff 2 had been alleged to have taken a stand in support of anti-CAA protests, farmers’ protests, communal violence in Manipur, Maoist attacks, etc.
The Court referred to Hanuman Beniwal v. Vinay Mishra 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4882, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna (1986) 4 SCC 537, and certain other cases to state that the Court was of the prima facie view that the allegations in various posts/videos were not based on any credible or reliable sources for making out a case.
Further, the Court stated that the allegations were not premised on any public record document such as any criminal case registered or pending against Dhanya Rajendran.
The Court stated that the plaintiffs had made out a case for grant of ad interim relief and that the Court was satisfied that grave and irreparable damages would be caused to the plaintiffs if the injunctive orders were not passed in their favour. The Court stated that the balance of convenience lies in the favour of the plaintiffs.
The Court directed the defendants to take down/remove/restrict access/block the URLs of the posts as well as the YouTube videos that contained defamatory statements against the plaintiffs within ten days.
Further, the Court stated that in case defendants 1-3 fail to take down/remove/restrict access/block the URLs, the plaintiffs shall have the liberty to approach and request YouTube, which shall then take down the URLs within 36 hours.
The matter is to be listed before the Court on 23-10-2024.
[Dhanya Rajendran v. Galaxy Zoom India Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4912, Decided on 15-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Plaintiffs — Sr. Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate Aashna Chawla, Advocate Shreya Singhal, Advocate Panveer Oberoi, Advocate Mhasilendo Keditsu, Advocate Bani Dikshit, Advocate Nipun Katyal, Advocate Udhav Khanna
For Defendants — Advocate Aditya Gupta
