Alok Kumar Brara v. Sarah Jane & Ors.

1. The plaintiff Alok Kumar Brara, resident of New Delhi, has instituted this suit against Sarah Jane, resident of California, USA, and Twitter Inc., USA, pleading (i) that the plaintiff is a publisher and founder/Chief Executive Officer of India Infrastructure Publishing; (ii) that the name and photograph of the plaintiff constitutes the original literary and photographic work, with the plaintiff as the owner of the copyright therein; (iii) that the plaintiff‟s attention was drawn to certain tweets tweeted from a Twitter handle @SarahJa90007013; (iv) that a perusal of the said Twitter account showed that the said account holder had joined Twitter only in February, 2018; (v) the said tweets were/are defamatory, derogatory and abusive of the plaintiff; (vi) the plaintiff, on 23rd March, 2018 reported offensive tweets through the reporting forms available on the platform of the defendant no.2 Twitter Inc.; (vii) a second take down notice was issued on 26th March, 2018; (viii) the defendant no.2 rejected the take down request made by the plaintiff without providing any valid or reasonable explanation; (ix) that the defendant no.1 Twitter handle has been used only for the purpose of publishing tweets defamatory and derogatory to the plaintiff; (x) the said 2019:DHC:2609 tweets call the plaintiff “a lecherous pest”, “in the garb of father figure, harassing and coercing the employees into sex”, “destroying girls, many as old as his own daughter” and call for an investigation into the conduct of the plaintiff (though the plaintiff, in the plaint has given other details also of the said tweets but for the present purpose need is not felt to record the same);

(xi) that the defendant no.1 Twitter handle is being used only for the purpose of tarnishing the impeccable reputation, goodwill and standing of the plaintiff; (xii) on 22nd April, 2018, the plaintiff learnt of other tweets published on the defendant no.1 Twitter handle, also defaming the plaintiff;

(xiii) that when one goes to the Twitter page of the defendant no.1, the same does not have any identity of Sarah Jane; (xiv) the photographs of the plaintiff have also been published in the tweet; (xv) what is claimed in the Twitter handle is false; (xvi) the said tweets violate the copyright and other proprietary rights of the plaintiff and also amount to defamation and identity theft of the plaintiff; (xvii) that the said tweets are cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff; (xviii) that the Twitter page by the name of Sarah Jane and the associated Twitter handle of the defendant no.1 are forged and fabricated and manipulated; (xix) that there is no real person by the name of Sarah Jane; (xx) the defendant no.2 Twitter Inc. is an intermediary within the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000;

(xxi) that the defendant no.2, under the Indian Information Technology

(xxii) that though the plaintiff has called upon the defendant no.2 to take down the offending tweets, but the defendant no.2 has not taken any action; and, (xxiii) the defendant no.2 Twitter Inc. is also liable to disclose the identity of the defendant no.1.

2. The plaintiff has thus claimed the reliefs of, (i) perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from defaming the plaintiff and from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff; (ii) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to take down the Twitter page and remove the offending tweets and to disclose the identity of the defendant no.1 Twitter handle or any other Twitter handle from which defamatory tweets have been tweeted; and, (iii) for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs.2,05,00,000/-.

3. The suit came up first before this Court on 1st May, 2018 and was adjourned from time to time as requisite court fees had not been paid. Finally on 12th December, 2018 summons of the suit were ordered to be issued and the defendant no.2 Twitter Inc. directed to furnish to this Court in a sealed cover the particulars available with it of the natural person behind the defendant no.1 Twitter handle and restrained from deleting the electronic records of the said twitter account, and to, within 48 hours of service of the order, suspend the defendant no.1 Twitter account.

4. The counsel for the plaintiff on 18th March, 2019 informed that the defendant no.1 Twitter account had been suspended. Therefrom service of the defendant no.1 was deemed to have been completed. However none appeared for either of the two defendants despite service.

5. It was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff on 18th March, 2019, why the suit should not be disposed of making absolute the order dated 12th December, 2018.

6. The counsel for the plaintiff, on 18th March, 2019 stated that the plaintiff needed to find the identity of the person who was manning the subject account.

7. However the counsel for the plaintiff was informed that even upon particulars of the person behind the Twitter account being disclosed/furnished, it generally does not lead to identity of the person. The counsel for the plaintiff on 18th March, 2019 sought time to consider and take instructions.

8. Thereafter 16th April, 2019 the counsel for the plaintiff again sought adjournment on the same grounds.

9. Today, the counsel for the plaintiff states that the suit be disposed of in terms of the order dated 12th December, 2018.

10. Though the suit raises issues of diverse implication but in the facts of the present case, it is not deemed necessary to keep the suit pending inasmuch as the plaintiff is not seeking any other relief except for suspension of the defendant no.1 Twitter account.

11. The suit is thus disposed of directing the defendant no.2 Twitter Inc., USA to make inoperative and deactivate the Twitter account @SarahJa90007013.