Court Orders Temporary Relief in Defamation Case, Balances Privacy and Free Expression.
22 July 2024
Civil Suits >> Civil & Consumer Law | Defamation >> Criminal Law
In a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, interim relief has been granted to a plaintiff seeking to address the lasting damage from defamatory posts even after his acquittal in a criminal case. The decision underscores the balancing act between an individual’s right to privacy and the freedom of the press.
Case Overview:
The case Rakesh Jagdish Kalra Rakesh Kalra v/s The India Today Group & Others, revolves around a plaintiff who was acquitted in 2019 of serious criminal charges, including those under the IPC and the Arms Act. Despite this acquittal, the plaintiff claims that several media houses and online platforms have continued to propagate defamatory content about him, which has adversely affected his reputation and professional life.
Court's Interim Orders:
The Delhi High Court has issued a series of interim orders in response to the plaintiff’s request for an ad-interim ex parte injunction. Here’s a summary of the court's directives:
Registration and Summons: The court has ordered the registration of the plaint as a suit and instructed the issuance of summons to the defendants. Defendant No. 2 has waived formal summons and is expected to file a written statement within thirty days. Other defendants are also directed to respond within the same timeframe upon receipt of the summons.
Document Inspection and Affidavits: The court has mandated that all parties file affidavits of admission or denial regarding the documents submitted. Failure to comply may result in the written statements not being considered.
Plaintiff’s Replication: The plaintiff is permitted to file a replication to the defendants’ written statements within thirty days, accompanied by an affidavit addressing the defendants' documents.
Ad-Interim Injunction: The court has issued an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from posting or updating any content related to the plaintiff’s previous criminal charges. Defendants are also ordered to delete the offending posts, with compliance required within fifteen days.
Disclosure of Unknown Defendants: For posts made by unknown individuals on the social media platform 'X', the court has directed the platform to disclose the contact details of these individuals to the plaintiff. The plaintiff will then seek to have these posts removed. If the unknown individuals do not comply, 'X' is required to remove the posts within 48 hours.
Legal Context and Court’s Reasoning:
The plaintiff’s case highlights the growing intersection of privacy rights and the freedom of expression. The plaintiff contends that despite his legal exoneration, the ongoing availability of defamatory content continues to harm his reputation and personal life.
Citing precedents such as K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India and decisions from the Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh High Courts, the Delhi High Court emphasized the principle of the right to be forgotten. The court recognized that an individual acquitted of criminal charges should not perpetually suffer the stigma of accusations that have been disproved. This approach aligns with the broader principles of privacy and dignity enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Impact and Future Proceedings:
The court’s interim orders reflect a nuanced approach to balancing the right to privacy with freedom of the press. By directing the removal of outdated and defamatory content and requiring the disclosure of information about anonymous posters, the court is addressing the immediate harm faced by the plaintiff while allowing for further legal scrutiny of the case. The matter is scheduled for further proceedings on 27th September 2024 before the Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings, with a subsequent listing before the court on 29th October 2024. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individuals' reputations against enduring harm from outdated or defamatory content, even as it respects the rights of media and public expression.