The Delhi High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Asha Menon Citing the right to be forgotten and entitlement to protection of privacy from invasion by strangers, granted interim relief to a Bengali actress, seeking restraint on publication and streaming of her naked videos on various online platforms including YouTube. ( X v. HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=IQ6K5Z3ZYS0 & Ors.)
The bench as an interim measure, directed the defendants to remove or pull down the impugned videos.
The bench observed, "...this Court is also of the opinion that the right to privacy of the plaintiff is to be protected, especially when it is her person that is being exhibited, and against her will."
Facts of the case
It was the case of the plaintiff actress that after being approached by Ram Gopal Verma Studios for filming a web-series, she was lured into participating in a video trailer comprising of complete frontal nudity, on the promise of giving her the lead role. However, the project fell through and the web-series was never produced.
Thereafter, the producer uploaded the impugned videos on his YouTube channel, which she discovered in December last year. Consequently, she requested the producer to remove the videos and her request was honored. However, she claimed that many websites had uploaded her videos, without her consent. As a consequence of such action, the plaintiff was constantly subjected to anonymous callers and also subjected to insults. Thus, the suit videos have resulted in loss of reputation as also great prejudice to the plaintiff’s professional endeavors.
Therefore, the present petition was filed to the suit videos removed from the internet.
Contention of the Parties
The learned counsel for the plaintiff, urges this Court to grant interim protection against the publication/streaming/ broadcasting, etc., of the suit videos on the various URLs/ websites/mobile applications and other online platforms, portraying the plaintiff in a manner that infringes her privacy.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India,
(2017) 10 SCC 1 to submit that the plaintiff was entitled to her privacy as a fundamental right. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions of this court in Jorawer Singh Mundy v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine
Del 2306 and Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. Quintillion Business Media Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8494 to submit that interim protection can be granted to the plaintiff as she also has a right to be forgotten. Reliance has further been placed on the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha, 2020 SCC OnLine Ori 878.
The learned counsel for the defendants No.69 and 70, however, has opposed the grant of any interim relief, contending that the defendants were not aware of any agreement that permitted the broadcast of the suit videos and involving consideration. It was also submitted that since the plaintiff had consented to the filming of the scenes in question, it would be necessary to see whether the defendants were under any obligation to prevent its further publication.
Learned counsel also submitted that there were several judgments dealing with similar issues, where interim relief was not granted.
Learned counsel for the defendants No.69 and 70 has further opposed the grant of interim relief on the ground that the suit itself was not maintainable on the basis of the right to be forgotten. She has also relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Karthick Theodre v. Registrar General, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2755 declaring that there was no such right to be forgotten, since there was no statutory law in this regard.
The learned counsel for the defendants No.69 and 70 has furthersubmitted in the written note that Rule 3(2)(b) of the IT Rules had to be read in juxtaposition with Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which excluded material that was published in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern. Learned counsel has submitted that since the suit videos related to a film and the videos were shot with the consent of the plaintiff, the case did not fall within the parameters of said Rule 3(2)(b). In any case,
Rule 3(2)(b) requires a complaint from the victim or authorized representative, which was absent in the present case and therefore, Rule 3(2)(b) may not be strictly applicable.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench remarked, "It is true that the High Courts of Madras and Orissa have held that there is no statutory right to be forgotten. However, at this stage, this Court is not coming to any final conclusions. But, following the view taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in Zulfiqar Ahman Khan (supra) that the “right to privacy” includes the right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone as “inherent aspects”, this Court is also of the opinion that the right to privacy of the plaintiff is to be protected, especially when it is her person that is being exhibited, and against her will.
In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the plaintiff is entitled “to be left alone” and “to be forgotten”, she is entitled to protection from invasion of her privacy by strangers and anonymous callers on account of such publication/streaming/transmission of the suit videos by the defendants."
The bench adjourning the matter to 22nd September remarked, "Thus, till the next date of hearing, the defendants are directed to remove/pull down the suit videos, footage, clip audio only and/or any part of the suit videos and to stop uploading/publishing/streaming/transmitting/broadcasting/communicating to the public the suit videos, footage, clip audio only and/or any part of the suit videos on their web portals/electronic/digital platforms/mobile applications/online platforms, including YouTube channels as well as any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites created by Defendant Nos. 1-36.
The plaintiff is also permitted to communicate this order to the other electronic/digital platforms, if found publishing/streaming/ transmission, etc., of the suit videos/clips. Provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be complied with."
Read Order;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments