Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by the plaintiff who is a national spokesperson of the Indian National Congress, dentist by profession and Chairperson and Trustee of Zoya Charitable Trust, an NGO seeking permanent and mandatory injunction along with damages and compensation on account of defamation committed by a national spokesperson of the BJP (defendant 1) and an Indian Media conglomerate ‘TV-18’ (defendant 2). Vikas Mahajan, J., issued an ad-interim injunction, ordering the media conglomerate to remove the defamatory video from Google’s platform within two weeks and if the company fails to comply, the plaintiff is allowed to approach Google directly, which must then act within 36 hours to restrict access to the video.
Defendant 1 claims herself to be a national spokesperson of the Bhartiya Janta Party (‘BJP’). The defendant 2 i.e., ‘TV-18’ is an Indian Media conglomerate. The defendant 3 and 4 are social media platforms viz. ‘X Corp.’ and ‘Google LLP’, respectively. The case relates to alleged defamatory statements made against the plaintiff, a national spokesperson for the Indian National Congress, on a televised debate regarding an incident in West Bengal. During the debate, the defendant from the BJP purportedly used derogatory labels, calling the plaintiff a “Madrassa Bred Bigot” and questioning her qualifications as a doctor.
The plaintiff argued that these statements have caused severe harm to her reputation, given her public position, and have spread widely on social media, attracting further defamatory comments from viewers. She contended that the comments were baseless, defamatory, and intended to portray her in a negative light, which has impacted her professional and personal reputation.
In support of her argument, the plaintiff’s counsel cited past instances of the defendant’s conduct and referenced the National Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority’s past penalties against the media entity for similar transgressions.
The Court noted that perusal of the transcript of the TV debate revealed that the defendant 1 has used terms like ‘Bewakoof Aurat’, ‘Shama Mohammad is as shameless as they come’, ‘she is not even a doctor’, ‘you are not a doctor’ and ‘you are a Madrassa Bred Bigot’ against the plaintiff. Such comments / terms made by the defendant 1 in the TV debate organized by the defendant 2 before the public at large and further shared by the defendant 2 on different social media platforms of the defendant 3 and 4, on the face of it appears to be defamatory, in as much as, such comments are per se demeaning and have a potential to harm the image of the plaintiff, who is a national spokesperson of the INC and a Dentist by profession.
The Court further observed that reputation is an integral and important aspect of the dignity of every individual. The rights conferred by Article 19(1)(a) are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the public or decency or morality or in relation to defamation or incitement of an offence. This freedom needs to be exercised with circumspection and cannot be permitted to violate the rights of other citizens and to jeopardize their public interest. More so, in case of political functionaries, who spend their lifetime building their image in the public, which cannot be permitted to be tumbled by baseless, defamatory statements by any political entity/individual for petty gains.
Thus, the Court held that the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of ad-interim relief, grave and irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the plaintiff, if ad-interim injunctive order is not passed in her favour and the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff.
The Court directed defendant 2 to take down/remove/restrict/access/block the below mentioned URL of the video uploaded on the defendant 4’s social media platform i.e., ‘Google LLP’ within a period of two weeks. If, defendant 2 fails to take down/remove/restrict/access/block the URL within the period of two weeks, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to approach the ‘Google LLP’.
[Dr Shama Mohamed v. Sanju Verma, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7549, decided on 22-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr Muhammad Ali Khan, Mr Omar Hoda, Ms Eesha Bakshi, Mr S. M. Khursheed, Mr Uday Bhatia, and Mr K. Sharma, Advocates for plaintiff
