It is absolutely in the fitness of things that while taking a very firm and balanced stand, the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Rajat Sharma vs X Corp (Formerly Twitter) & Ors in CS(OS) 495/2024 & I.A. 31743/2024 and cited also in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:DHC:4757 that was pronounced most recently on June 14, 2024 has ordered a takedown of social media posts and videos by Congress party leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera alleging that journalist Rajat Sharma had abused and used foul language against Congress spokesperson – Ragini Nayak on live television. It would be material to note that in an ex parte interim order that was passed on June 14, the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has minced just no words to state in no uncertain terms that the Congress leaders had over-sensationalized the incidents and there was a false depiction of facts. We thus see that the Delhi High Court unequivocally held that irreparable loss would be caused to Sharma if the content is allowed to remain on social media platforms.

Truth be told, we thus find that the posts was clearly ordered by the Delhi High Court to be removed within a week. In addition, we must also note that the Court also issued a summons to the Congress leaders on Rajat Sharma’s suit and listed the case for further hearing on July 11. It would be also extremely vital to note that Rajat Sharma has gone to the extent of suing eminent Congress party leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera for defamation and sought Rs 100 crore for damages.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 8 that:
The Suit for Permanent Injunction and Damages has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff against the defendants.

As we see, the Bench discloses in para 9 that:
It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff is a well-known Indian Journalist and TV Anchor and is also the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of M/s Independent News Service Private Limited (INDIA TV) and is the highest followed television news personality globally on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) with 11.1 million followers.

While giving a brief background of plaintiff, the Bench points out in para 10 that:
The plaintiff on account of his sheer hard work with utmost sincerity in the field of Journalism and Media, was awarded with the Padma Bhushan in the year 2015 and has also hosted various television programmes apart from the famous Programme ‘APP KI ADALAT’ which is the longest running television show in India.

While elaborating further, the Bench mentions in para 11 that:
The plaintiff has earned a reputation of credible reporting, courage, espousal of public interest and unmatched integrity and this Court vide Order dated 11.01.2019 passed in CS(COMM) 15/2019 titled Rajat Sharma and Anr. vs. Ashok Venkatramani & Anr., had recognised the Personality Rights of the plaintiff by restraining the defendants therein from using the name of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever. Even recently, this Court vide Order dated 30.05.2024 passed in CS(COMM) 498/2024 titled Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors., has restrained the defendants therein from using the name and photograph of the plaintiff herein.

As things stands, the Bench states in para 12 that:
The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are social media platforms i.e., X (formerly known as Twitter), YouTube and Facebook respectively. The defendant Nos. 4 and 6 are the members of All India Congress Committee (AICC). The defendant No. 4 is the General Secretary In-charge, Communications, AICC. The defendant No. 5 is the Chairman, Media and Publicity Department, AICC and the defendant No. 6 is a Spokesperson of AICC.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 13 that:
It is submitted that during the live debate on India TV Channel on the 4.06.2024, anchored by the plaintiff a discussion regarding the results of the Lok Sabha General Election, 2024 was taking place wherein the defendant No. 6 only expressed her views regarding the election results and did not make any other comment and did not raise any objection to any alleged language used by the Plaintiff or any other anchor of India TV.

Briefly stated, the Bench states in para 14 that:
The plaintiff is aggrieved by per se defamatory statements made by the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 against him on 10.06.2024 and 11.06.2024 by posting on ‘X’ (Twitter) and by holding a press conference, wherein it has been alleged by the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 that plaintiff had used abusive language against the defendant No. 6 on 04.06.2024 during the live telecast of a debate on India TV News Channel. The defendant Nos. 4 to 6 also posted an edited video on ‘X’ (Twitter) claiming it to be the ‘Raw Footage’ of the debate held on 04.06.2024 on India TV New Channel. In addition to the said Tweets, the video recording of the Press Conference dated 11.06.2024 has also been shared on YouTube and ‘X’ (Twitter) and some of the links thereof from the official ‘X’ and YouTube accounts of the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are as under. Due to paucity of space, we are not mentioning the name of the links here.

Simply put, the Bench observes in para 38 that:
The facts of the present case may now be considered in the light of aforesaid principles to ascertain whether the injunctive relief is justified in the circumstances as made out in the plaint. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is a distinguished Senior Journalist and is acknowledged for his expertise and experience.

Do note, the Bench notes in para 39 that:
Here is the case where the applicant/plaintiff while being a public figure, had only been discharging his professional duty while conducting a debate on Lok Sabha Elections. Subsequently, statements were made by the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 against him on 10.06.2024 and 11.06.2024 by posting on ‘X’ (erstwhile ‘Twitter’) and held a press conference, wherein the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 alleged that plaintiff had used abusive language against the defendant No. 6 on 04.06.2024 during the live telecast of the debate on India TV News Channel. The defendant Nos. 4 to 6 also posted an edited video on ‘X’ (Twitter) claiming it to be the ‘Raw Footage’ of the debate held on 04.06.2024 on India TV New Channel. However, from the footage of the video of the said TV debate which has been played in the Court, it is prima facie evident that the plaintiff had barely intervened for a few seconds and no abusive language was used against defendant No. 6.

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 40 that:
While the threshold of public criticism and alleged defamatory X posts/Tweets and YouTube videos on intermediary platforms is much higher, but the individual dignity and honour of a person cannot be allowed to be defamed or disrepute brought to him on the ground of Right of Free Speech and Expression. A thin line of distinction exists between defamation and public criticism and an onerous task lies with the Courts to maintain this delicate balance between the competing claims and rights.

Most remarkably, the Bench propounds in para 41 that:
The Apex Court in the case of Amish Devgan vs. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1 referred to Subramanian Swamy (supra), wherein it had been ruled that dignity is the quintessential quality of personality and a basic constituent along with honour and reputation of the rights guaranteed and protected under Article 21. Dignity is a part of the individual rights that form the fundamental fulcrum of collective harmony and interest of a society. While right to speech and expression is absolutely sacrosanct in the sense that it is essential for individual growth and progress of democracy which recognises voice of dissent, tolerance for discordant notes and acceptance of different voices, albeit the right to equality under Article 14 and right to dignity as a part of Article 21 have their own significance.

It must be noted that the key takeaway from para 42 as stated by Bench is that, The material as placed on record prima facie shows that even though there was no abuse given by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 6, but in subsequent videos, insertion has been made that बौखलाए रजत शराा, रजत शराानेदी गाली which prima facie seems to be a total misrepresentation of the true facts and convoluted insulations have been made by the defendant No. 6 which are targeted at damaging the reputation of the plaintiff.

Most significantly, the Bench mandates in para 47 postulating that:
It cannot be denied that the citizens have a right to freedom of Speech and expression but there was also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The X posts berating the plaintiff are nothing but an over-sensationalization and depiction of facts which are patently false. Prima facie dissemination of such X Posts has not only caused harm to the reputation of the plaintiff as has been asserted by him, but also has the potential of persistent threat of being used against the plaintiff at any time in future. Such being the imminent threat of misuse of the videos in future, which are prima facie depicting plaintiff in a light which may not be based on true facts, is liable to be restrained from being kept in the public domain till the Suit is finally decided.

Most forthrightly, the Bench holds in para 48 that:
The irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff for if the videos and Tweets, etc as mentioned above, is allowed to be in the public domain, it would continue to cause harm to his reputation as a respectable Journalist which would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff. No harm would be caused to the defendants if the material is restrained from remaining in public domain till the suit is adjudicated on merits, while these tweets have a potential of bringing disrepute to the Plaintiff in future with practically no reparation to the damage to his reputation. The applicant/plaintiff may have quantified damages for defamation and to his reputation but if such videos are permitted to remain in public, the harm already caused, would get perpetuated in future. Therefore, the irreparable loss would be caused to the applicant/plaintiff in case the injunction as sought by the applicant/plaintiff is not granted.

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 49 that:
The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff for the simple reason that by making these videos private or injuncting them from being available on the public platforms, would not, in any way, infringe on the rights of the defendants of freedom of speech and expression which they can, in any case, exercise within the defined parameters. However, the inconvenience that would result from these videos and X posts/Tweets etc., continuing to remain in public domain, has the potential to cause an inconvenience which may not be possible to be reparated or compensated by damages or otherwise, in future.

As a corollary, the Bench then directs in para 50 holding that:
From the aforesaid discussion, it is directed that the X Posts/Tweets (URLs annexed as ‘Annexure-1’) which have not been removed, be removed within seven days by defendants in terms of the Intermediary Guidelines. It is further directed that the videos which are in the public domain be made private by defendant No.2 and not to be put in the public domain, without the Orders of this Court.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing in para 53 that:
On taking steps, let summons be served upon the defendants through ordinary and electronic modes, returnable before the Roster Bench on 11.07.2024.

In essence, we thus see that the Delhi High Court very rightly orders the removal of social media posts claiming Rajat Sharma abused Congress leaders on TV. The case is yet to be finally decided on merits and the next date of hearing is on July 11 and so it would definitely not be in order to speculate as to what will be the final outcome. But definitely we can infer clearly that the first round of legal battle has tilted the scales clearly in favour of Mr Rajat Sharma!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh