Amit Malviya v. Samajwadi Party Media Cell & Ors

16. It is the case of the plaintiff and so contended by Mr. Arvind Nayar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is currently the head of Bhartiya Janta Party’s National Information & Technology Department (‘NITD,’ for short) and a co-in-charge of the West Bengal unit of Bhartiya Janta Party (‘BJP’, for short).

17. He submits that the plaintiff has been a national office bearer of BJP since 2010. Before taking up full-time responsibility in BJP, the plaintiff worked in senior positions with leading multiple national banks. Hence, the plaintiff is a public figure and a well-known face all over the country. It is the result of the public work done by the plaintiff for the welfare of the public at large across the nation that he enjoys immense popularity amongst the masses.

18. He submits that the plaintiff has a huge following over different social media platform, inasmuch as, more than eight lakhs people follow him on ‘X’/defendant no. 3. Similarly, more than twenty thousand people follow him on Facebook and thousands of people follow him on Instagram and LinkedIn. Therefore, he submits that the plaintiff has wide outreach amongst the general public and as such has an impeccable reputation earned through his sheer hard work.

19. He submits that the defendant no. 2 is Samajwadi Party (‘SP’, for short) which is a national political party founded in the year 1992 in Uttar Pradesh. The defendant no. 1 is the IT Cell of the defendant no. 2 which operates on microblogging website ‘X’ as @MediaCellSP.

20. It is the submission of Mr. Nayar that in July 2024, it was widely published in media about horrific incident of brutal sexual assault on a twelve-year-old girl by three men including the leader of the defendant no. 2 in Ayodhya. The said incident sparked national outreach and widespread concern.

21. He submits that on 03.08.2024, the President of defendant no. 2 uploaded a post on ‘X’ at 3:18 p.m. vide his ‘X’ handle which reads as under: “In the case of misdeeds, the way for justice should be found by getting DNA tests done of those who are accused, and not by merely making allegations and doing politics. Whoever is guilty should be given full punishment according to the law, but if the allegations are proven false after the DNA test, then the government officials involved should also not be spared. This is the demand of justice.”

22. It is the submission of Mr. Nayar that the above statement was made with the sole objective of trivializing the incident and derailing the matter and providing the accused with the benefit of doubt. In response to the harrowing event and pursuant to the aforesaid post, the plaintiff twitted / posted a post on his ‘X’ handle criticizing the stance of the President of defendant no. 2 taken in the above post.

23. Mr. Nayar submits that the aforesaid post of the plaintiff was uploaded in recognition of the grave nature of assault, reflecting the national outreach and the urgent need for action. By highlighting the severity of the incident, the plaintiff aimed to raise public awareness and to foster a heightened sense of responsibility and urgency to ensure justice for the victim and safeguard the welfare of the children.

24. He submits that in response to the plaintiff’s post addressing outrage over the assault, on the same day, i.e., on 03.08.2024 at 9:03 p.m., the defendant no. 1 retaliated with a personal attack against the plaintiff by way of uploading a post from its ‘X’ handle, ‘@MediaCellSP’, making false and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff of sexual misconduct purportedly committed by him.

25. He submits that the allegations made against the plaintiff has sought to undermine the plaintiff’s credibility in relation to the serious issue raised. He submits that the defendant no. 1 posted a false and defamatory post with an intention to harm plaintiff’s reputation. The statement was made to divert the primary issue of assault. He submits that the contents of the defamatory post are ex-facie defamatory, incorrect, and highly prejudicial to the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff.

26. He submits that the aforesaid defamatory and scandalous statement made by the defendant no. 1 have been widely published, circulated and read by the public at large, significantly diminishing the plaintiff’s reputation. The post has also been reported by several media houses with wide readership across India, further amplifying its negative impact on the plaintiff’s reputation.

27. He submits that the defamatory post has been viewed by 55.3K viewers on ‘X’ as on 08.08.2024. The post containing defamatory content has been reposted by 724 people and liked by 1,625 subscribers on ‘X’. Moreover, colleagues and acquaintances of the plaintiff have also been distressed and informed the plaintiff about the defamatory post.

28. He submits that if the defamatory post is permitted to remain online on the platform of defendant no. 3/’X’, the plaintiff’s reputation will be tarnished with each passing hour by people spreading or re-tweeting the said post.

29. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the alleged defamatory post dated 03.08.2024 published by defendant no. 1 on its ‘X’ handle @MediaCellSP.

30. The impugned post reveals that the defendant no. 1 has made grave and serious allegations against the plaintiff. The nature of allegations is extremely offensive, inasmuch as, the plaintiff has been accused of sexually abusing girls by calling them to hotels and having illicit relations with boys as well. This Court is prima facie of the view that there is substance in the submissions made by Mr. Nayar that the alleged post is a retaliatory post containing defamatory and libellous allegations and insinuations, made in reckless manner without regard to the truth, to tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff, who, by virtue of his professional profile, is a public figure.

31. An individual reputation is an integral part of his/her personality and cannot be unjustly tarnished under the guise of freedom of speech. The plaintiff is head of national political party’s NITD and also co-in-charge of West Bengal unit of BJP and the heedless allegations of the nature made in the offending post not only bring his name into disrepute, but have the potential of adversely affecting his political career built over the years.

32. In this regard, reference may also be advantageously made to recent decision of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Gaurav Bhatia v. Naveen Kumar[1], wherein in the context of balancing the right of freedom of speech vis-a-vis right to have dignity and reputation, it has been held has under: -

33. Reference may also be had to the judgment of this Court in the case of

Hanuman Beniwal and Others vs. Vinay Mishra and Others[2], wherein this Court noted the circumstances under which relief of interim injunction could be granted, besides observing that the public image of political functionaries, which is built by hard work during their life time cannot be permitted to be tumbled by baseless, defamatory statements by any political entity / individual for petty gains. The relevant part of the said judgment reads thus:

and followers and mould the public opinion on vital issues of political and national importance.

28. It is also well settled that reputation is an integral part of the dignity of each individual. As such, there is a need for balance between the freedom of speech and expression vis-à-vis the right to reputation. The defamation per se is also an offence and has been dealt in Sections 499 & 500 of IPC. Thus, the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of CS(OS) 623/2024 India cannot be extended to intentional hurt to any other person's reputation, though imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published, is considered as a valid defence against defamation.

29. It has been well recognized that in case of libel and slander, interim injunction may be granted in case (i) the statement is unarguably defamatory; (ii) there are no grounds for concluding that the statement may be true; (iii) there is no other defence which might succeed; and (iv) there is evidence of an intention to repeat or publish the defamatory statement.” (emphasis supplied)

34. Having regard to above discussed facts and circumstances in the light of aforesaid decisions, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of ad interim relief. I am also satisfied that grave and irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the plaintiff, if ad interim injunctive orders are not passed in his favour. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff.

35. Under these circumstances, the defendant nos.[1] and 2 are directed to take down/remove/restrict access/block the below mentioned URL of the post uploaded on ‘X’, which contains defamatory statements against the plaintiff within a period four days: https://x.com/mediacellsp/status/1819758492355358871?s=46&t=VIt[7] -O-CQ09Hvxw8ihE1ag

36. In the event the defendant nos.[1] and 2 fails to take down / remove/ restrict access / block the aforementioned URL within the period of four days, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to approach and request the defendant no.3 / ‘X’, and the latter, in that eventuality, shall take down the URL as mentioned in paragraph 35 above, within a period of 36 hours of such request.

37. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be made within two weeks. An affidavit of compliance may be filed within three days thereafter. Copy this order be also given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

38. Needless to say, that the observations made herein are prima facie for the consideration of ad-interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPCby the plaintiffs.

39. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings on 28.10.2024.

40. List before the Court on 19.11.2024.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J AUGUST 16, 2024 ‘rs’