"Freedom Of Speech Is Not An Unfettered Right": Delhi HC Directs Media Channels To Take Down 'Defamatory' Content On Social Media Against YSRCP MP Vijaya Sai Reddy

The Court was hearing a Suit seeking damages, and a permanent and mandatory injunction against defendants nos. 1 to 6 on the ground that the said defendants have made false, derogatory, scandalous, illegal and defamatory statements against the plaintiff on multiple social media platforms.

The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan observed, “It is also trite law that the freedom of speech is not an unfettered right and in case, the libel concerned is prima facie untrue, the ad interim injunction may be granted."

Advocate Amit Agrawal appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Samarth Krishna Luthra appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The Plaintiff, Venumbaka Vijaya Sai Reddy, a prominent public figure and Rajya Sabha Member from Andhra Pradesh, alleged that six news channels ( ABN Andhra Jyothi’, ‘Mahaa News’, ‘TV5 News’, ‘BIG TV’, ‘Aadhan – Aadhan and ‘Wild Wolf TV’) along with several social media platforms and unknown persons, disseminated false and defamatory information about him. He claimed that all the platforms broadcasted programmes where they falsely accused him of having an extramarital affair. They also claimed his involvement in dubious land transactions during the COVID-19 lockdown, it was also said that the plaintiff is responsible for impregnating a Government officer and that the plaintiff is involved in various scandals, narcotics incidents and liquor scams along with other similar accusations.

The Court was prima facie of the view that there is a substance in the submissions that the alleged videos and posts contain defamatory and libellous allegations and insinuations, made in a reckless manner without regard to the truth, to injure the reputation of the plaintiff.

The Court perused the transcripts of various programmes and noted that most of the statements are based on rumours and observed, that it is trite law that rumours unlike truth must not be acted upon as information for dissemination before the public at large especially when such rumours can potentially affect the dignity of a woman as well as the reputation of a person with whom the name of the woman is sought to be attached.

The Court mentioned the decision in Hanuman Beniwal and Others vs. Vinay Mishra and Others and quoted, “However, each citizen has a right to express his sentiments except to the extent permitted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. It is manifest under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India that the rights conferred by Article 19(1)(a) are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the public or decency or morality or in relation to defamation or incitement of an offence. This freedom needs to be exercised with circumspection and care and cannot be permitted to violate the rights of other citizens and to jeopardize their public interest. More so, in case of political functionaries, who spend their lifetime for building their image in the public, the same cannot be permitted to be tumbled by baseless, defamatory statements by any political entity/individual for petty gains.”

The Court further mentioned the decision in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. L.K. Ratna and quoted, “To many a man, his professional reputation is his most valuable possession. It affects his standing and dignity among his fellow members in the profession, and guarantees the esteem of his clientele. It is often the carefully garnered fruit of a long period of scrupulous, conscientious and diligent industry. It is the portrait of his professional honour. In a world said to be notorious for its blase attitude towards the noble values of an earlier generation, a man's professional reputation is still his most sensitive pride.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the defendants to take down the content.

The Court listed the matter on November 25, 2024.

Cause Title: VENUMBAKA VIJAYA SAI REDDY v. AAMODA PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6064)

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. Amit Agrawal, Adv. Sahil Raveen, Adv. Rahul Kukreja, Adv. Sana Jain and Adv. Arjun Chhibbar

Respondent: Adv. Samarth Krishna Luthr, Adv. Chirag Kakkar, Adv. Mamta R. Jha, Adv. Rohan Ahuja, Adv. Shruttima Ehersa and Adv. Rahul Choudhary

Click here to read/download Judgment