Durgesh Pratap Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in public interest and the prayer made in the writ petition reads as under:- "a) Prepare a mechanism for restraining from publishing, republishing, carrying out any further reports or articles or any other matter telecast or repeat telecast or programs, or debates or any discussion or reporting of any kind, directly or indirectly, pertaining to the purported complaint/allegations made against individuals in # Me too or similar public forum, and, b) Prepare a mechanism for restraining persons from publishing the write ups or publishing any article or write up and telecast which highlights the allegations against individuals in the form of headlines connecting or associating WP.(C) No.11292/2018 Page 1 of[2] 2018:DHC:8840-DB individuals with those allegations made in #Me too or similar public forum, and, c) Frame a mechanism to deal with offence of sexual harassments committed against women before the amendments incorporated in Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013 and implementation of Sexual Harassment of Women At Work » Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013"

2. At the instance of the petitioner, we cannot issue any mandamus restraining persons jfrom publishing or re-publishing reports as alleged in the matter. It is for the aggrieved persons to seek indulgence of this Court and in specific case, based on facts and circumstances, ifrequired, restraint order can be passed. At the instance of the petitioner no general order restraining publication by the media can be issued by us and, therefore, we see no reason to make any indulgence into the matter in a public interest litigation.

3. It is, however, made clear that liberty shall be available to an individual aggrieved person in a given case to seek similar relief

4. With the aforesaid, finding no case for indulgence, the petition, along with the pending application, stands dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE OCTOBER 22, 2018 'anb' il

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J