Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking an ad-interim ex parte injunction against various media houses, primarily due to his claim of being falsely implicated in a criminal case under Sections 176, 201, 202, 336, and 334 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, and despite being acquitted on 15-10-2019, by the Metropolitan Magistrate of the 66th Court in Andheri, Mumbai, the media houses did not remove the initial defamatory posts from their websites but instead updated them to mention the plaintiff’s acquittal, which, according to the plaintiff, continued to harm his reputation. Vikas Mahajan, J., directed defendants 1 to 4 to take down the original defamatory posts from their websites and any other platforms where they had been published and instructed the media houses to refrain from publishing any further defamatory content about the plaintiff related to the criminal case.
The Court remarked that “This Court is prima facie of the view that right to freedom of expression of the press in the present case must give way to the right to privacy of the plaintiff especially when he has been exonerated of all the allegations leading to his honourable acquittal. Apart from the existence of old news articles / posts on the internet, the plaintiff’s reputation has been injured on account of updation of such posts which has again brought plaintiff’s accusation under public glare. Further, the posts made by unknown persons on the defendant 5’s / ‘X’ platform have also equally injured the reputation of the plaintiff. Therefore, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the right to be forgotten in favour of the plaintiff.”
An application was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking an ad-interim ex parte injunction on grounds that the plaintiff was falsely implicated in a case under Sections 176, 201, 202, 336, and 334 of the Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The case was registered in Mumbai on 24-06-2018 but was later acquitted after a full trial due to the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt.
At the time of the criminal case’s registration in June 2018, various media houses, including India Today Group, INDIADOTCOM Digital Pvt. Ltd., Midday Infomedia Ltd., and The Indian Express (defendants 1 to 4), posted news items on their websites alleging the plaintiff’s involvement in the crime. Despite the plaintiff’s acquittal, these posts were not removed. The plaintiff served legal notices dated 03-05-2024, to various media houses. Some complied and removed the content, but defendants 1 to 4 did not but instead, they updated their posts to mention the plaintiff’s acquittal, which effectively revived the original allegations.
Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the continued availability of the original defamatory posts, even after updates mentioning the plaintiff’s acquittal, causes significant harm to the plaintiff’s reputation. The plaintiff is an established businessman with a family, and the defamatory content has adversely affected his standing in the corporate world and among his social circles. The counsel cited several legal precedents to support the argument that the right to be forgotten is an inherent aspect of the right to privacy. This right ensures that an individual, once acquitted, should not be perpetually viewed as an accused.
The Court noted that the acquittal of the plaintiff is undisputed. However, the updated posts by defendants 1, 2, and 4 still contained the original defamatory allegations. Placing reliance on Karnataka High Court’s decision in Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka v. State Public Prosecutor; 2024 SCC Online Kar 18, which stated that an acquitted individual should not carry the stigma of accusation for life. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, which affirmed the right to privacy, including the right to be forgotten.
Further, the Court cited Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. Quintillion Business Media Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8494 and Jorawer Singh Mundy v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2306, which supported the removal of defamatory content post-acquittal to protect an individual’s privacy and dignity. The Court also noted the recent decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in State of HP v. ‘X’; 2024 SCC OnLine HP 3169, which reinforced the right to be forgotten and the right to live with dignity post-acquittal.
Thus, the Court found merit in the plaintiff’s request for the removal of the defamatory posts and concluded that the plaintiff, having been honorably acquitted, has the right to live with dignity and should not be perpetually stigmatized by past allegations. Consequently, the Court issued a notice to the defendants and directed them to remove the defamatory content from their respective platforms. The Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant 1 to 4 as well as unknown persons (John Doe) who have made per se defamatory statements against the plaintiff on ‘X’.
[X v. India Today Group, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5113, decided on 22-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Sri Ram Verma and Mr. Sanjeev Babbar, Advocates for plaintiff
Mr. Rishi K. Awasthi, Mr. Rahul Mishra, Mr. Abhigyat Chatanya and Mr. Jasmeet Singh Bindra, Advocates for D-2
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
