On 13th July a bench of the Delhi High Court consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar while directing to delete his defamatory tweets against former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General Lakshmi Puri observed that in the age of social media, desecration of the reputation of a public figure has become child’s play. All that is needed is the opening of a social media account and, thereafter, the posting of messages on the account.
The court also reiterated the Apex Court in stating that the right to life, consecrated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, infuses the reputation of the individual.3 Reputation, it is well settled, precedes the man.
Facts of the case:
The
cause of action for filing the present suit commenced with post, posted
by Saket Gokhale, who professes to be an “activist” and a virtual-world
vigilante, on 13th June, 2021 whereby he questioned the source of money
with which Lakshmi Puri bought her apartment in Switzerland the amount
of which was disclosed at as CHF 1.6 million. The assertion in those
tweets was that the Swiss Apartment was “purely and allegedly bought
from Govt of India salary.” In these circumstances, the plaintiff has
filed the present suit before this Court, seeking a mandatory injunction
against the defendant, to immediately take down/delete the Tweets
directed against the plaintiff.
Contention of the plaintiff:
Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff contended the following:
- It was submitted that the Swiss Apartment was bought, not “from Government of India salary”, as alleged in the afore-extracted Tweet, but through loans from the Bank as well as the money provided by her daughter.
- It was also submitted that the entire game plan of the defendant appears, from the beginning, to be to link the plaintiff, and her husband, with “black money” stashed in Switzerland and that this constitutes, clearly and prima facie, defamation of the plaintiff.
Contention of the defendant:
Mr. Naved, learned Counsel for the defendant, argued on the following grounds:
- It was submitted that the assets of every candidate, standing for elections, are a matter of public concern and that, therefore, his client was merely provoking public debate over a matter with which, as an activist, he was concerned.
- Mr. Naved submitted that, “unfortunately”, the law does not require him to seek any clarification either from the plaintiff or from any other statutory authority. It was also stated that the defendant actuated purely by public interest, with no personal axe to grind.
Observation and judgement of the court:
The Hon’ble bench of the court observed the following:
- The court was of the view that before posting tweets such as those which were posted by the defendant against the plaintiff, it was incumbent on the defendant to carry out a preliminary due diligence exercise otherwise it would place the reputation of every citizen in the country in serious jeopardy.
- It was observed that the Swiss Apartment having been purchased by the plaintiff in 2005, the facts relating to such purchase having been disclosed by the plaintiff, not only to the MEA but also in her Income Tax returns, as well as by her husband, in the affidavit filed by him while contesting elections in 2018 and again in 2020.
- The loss and prejudice that the plaintiff is likely to suffer, as a consequence of the thoughtless tweets of the defendant, cannot be compensated in monetary terms.
In the view of the above, the court directed the defendant to immediately delete, from his Twitter account, all Tweets against the plaintiff. The defendant was also restrained, pending further orders of the Court, from posting any defamatory or scandalous or factually incorrect Tweet, on his Twitter account, against the plaintiff or her husband.
Read Judgment;
0 Comments