You can access the court order from here.
A Delhi court has directed OpIndia to temporarily remove two articles on journalist Swati Chaturvedi after holding that their continued circulation could cause “irreparable” harm to her reputation during the pendency of a defamation suit.
In an interim order passed on May 13, District Judge Meenu Kaushik of Patiala House Courts asked OpIndia to block or remove the articles published on June 2, 2018, and May 8, 2019, till further orders. The court also restrained the platform from publishing defamatory content against Chaturvedi pending the suit.
Trigger for the dispute: The dispute stems from two OpIndia articles that described Chaturvedi as “delusional”, accused her of “lies and fabrications”, linked her to plagiarism allegations and “extortion rackets”, and referred to her association with The Wire as a “leftist propaganda website”.
Chaturvedi argued that the reports damaged her credibility as a journalist and continued to remain online despite a legal notice seeking their removal and an apology. She told the court that the allegations were false, malicious and harmful to her professional standing.
OpIndia’s defence in court: OpIndia opposed the plea, arguing that the suit sought to curb free speech protected under the Constitution. The defendants said the articles were based on material already available in the public domain and amounted to fair comment on Chaturvedi’s writings regarding RSS- and BJP-related issues. They also argued that describing someone as “leftist” or “rightist” was a political characterization and not defamatory in itself.
The defendants relied on several free speech rulings, including Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., in which the Supreme Court cautioned courts against granting pre-publication restraints in media defamation disputes, and R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, which recognized the press’s right to publish material based on public records.
What the court observed: However, the court said the source material placed on record by the defendants did not prima facie support some of the serious allegations made in the articles, particularly the reference to “extortion rackets”. The judge observed that the allegedly defamatory statements did not clearly appear to originate from the cited public-domain sources.
The court noted that Chaturvedi’s professional reputation as a journalist and public commentator was central to her profession and said the continued availability of the articles could repeatedly damage her credibility. It held that monetary compensation alone may not adequately address such harm.
Free speech versus reputational harm: At the same time, the court acknowledged that injunctions in defamation matters involving the media must be granted cautiously because they can restrict free speech before a final ruling. The order cited the English decision in Bonnard v. Perryman, which warns courts to act carefully before restraining publication.
Still, the judge concluded that the balance of convenience favoured Chaturvedi because the defendants would remain free to prove their defence during the trial, including claims of truth and fair comment.
The court clarified that its findings were only prima facie observations and not a final ruling on whether defamation had occurred.
Read more:
For You
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。