Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The video recorded by Defendant 1 is extremely offensive, sexually explicit, foul and filthy utterances were made in the said video by Defendant 1 against the plaintiffs, which per se shocks the conscience of the court.”
BJP’s Mumbai spokesperson Suresh Karamshi Nakhua filed a defamation suit against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee for his video titled ‘My Reply to Godi Youtubers’.
Several defamatory statements were made against Malabar Gold Ltd. by Respondent 1 on his YouTube channel titled “Marunadan Malayali”.
It was said that the allegations asserted did not seem to be premised on a public record document such as a criminal case that was registered or pending against Dhanya Rajendran.
The Calcutta High Court, in a previous order, requested the parties to consider resolving the dispute by blurring out or removing fruit juice packets deceptively similar to Dabur’s ‘Real’ fruit juice from the impugned video.
“A thin line of distinction exists between defamation and public criticism and an onerous task lies with the Courts to maintain this delicate balance between the competing claims and rights.”
Several members of Aam Aadmi Party including members of various other opposition parties made an audio and video recording of Court proceedings which had been circulated on various social media platforms.
The press and the Media had a duty to report the incident for the benefit of the public, but there is also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The deepfake videos showing plaintiff being beaten up are nothing but an over-sensationalisation and depiction of facts which are patently false.
In 2021 Madras High Court granted bail to Sattai. Later, a Division Bench of High Court cancelled the bail. However, in 2022, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to him, and he has been out on bail since then.
Dhruv Rathee uploaded a video on his YouTube channel claiming that the consumption of packaged fruit juices leads to type II diabetes and that drinking packaged fruit juices leads to hair loss and is harmful if consumed.
This is another case which serves as a reminder to those in positions of power and influence whose words and deeds have a wider reach and impact on the citizenry of this country.
As per a status report dated 20-11-2023, the use of the mark ‘AAJ TAK’ has been disabled on all channels, and the domain names have been either suspended, locked or blocked.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“There can be no doubt that the right to freedom of speech deserves to be protected in order to communicate facts which are verifiable. Such facts ought to be based on credible test reports.”
“The portal, People of India is approaching the very same subjects who are shown on the website, Humans of Bombay, in order to create an imitative platform.”
Madras High Court directed Savukku to file an affidavit of undertaking, that in future he shall guard himself against violating any orders passed by any Court, or even make any comments which may impinge the majesty of the Courts.
Considering the fact that Senthil Balaji is a public person, the YouTube videos and tweets only make various allegations against him in performance of his official duties. Further, most of the statements are already available in public domain.
Delhi High Court noted that there is a severe threat to the safety and security of the petitioner as is evident from the comments and videos.
There is an abysmal absence of a collaborative effort that should ideally be undertaken by the intermediaries and the State.
Delhi High Court observed that every child is entitled to be treated with honour and respect whether he/she is a child of a celebrity or a commoner.