Bombay High Court: In a case wherein, a suit was filed by the applicant for defamation on account of false, reckless, and unsubstantiated allegations made by Respondent 1 in videos uploaded by him on his YouTube channel in respect of the applicant, a Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., opined that the statements made by Respondent 1 as discerned from the transcripts were per se defamatory. Thus, the Court directed taking down of the defamatory videos and held that till the present suit was pending, Respondents 1 and 2 were restrained by a permanent order and injunction, from making, publishing, or republishing and/or broadcasting or rebroadcasting and/or causing to be published or republished and/or causing to be broadcasting any defamatory and/or libellous or slanderous statements, videos, articles, interview or statement in any form whatsoever or the statements in relation to which the applicant took objection to, on any of the social media portals including YouTube, Facebook, Twitter.
Background
The applicant, a sitting Cabinet Minister of the State Government, and a Member of Legislative Assembly since the year 1995, stated that Respondent 1 on its YouTube channel named ‘Anil Gaganbhedi Thatte’, uploaded five videos, wherein he made false, reckless, and defamatory statements against the applicant. It was submitted that these videos clips were widely disseminated to the public at large and thus had garnered several views.
Further, it was submitted that one more offending video was uploaded on Respondent 2’s YouTube channel named ‘Mudda Bharat Ka’. Further, Counsel for the applicant referred to one such video, uploaded on 1-4-2025 and titled “How Girsh Mahajan’s Nights are Colourful”, wherein Respondent 1 made entirely false statements and insinuations against the applicant including insinuations of the application’s conduct with a lady IAS officer.
On 8-4-2025, Respondent 1 uploaded a video titled “Girish Mahjan wants 100 Crores… another sensational revelation”. Thereafter, on 10-4-2025, the applicant issued a cease-and-desist notice to Respondent 1, but despite that Respondent 1 uploaded another video on 14-4-2025. Thus, it was submitted that Respondent 1’s only intention was to malign and defame the applicant based on false, baseless, and reckless statements and insinuations.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that a case for the grant of ad interim relief had been made out as the statements made by Respondent 1 in the videos as discerned from the transcripts were per se defamatory. The Court stated that Respondent 1 despite being served, chose not to appear and justify the basis on which the statements and insinuations were made against the applicant.
Thus, the Court held that till the present suit was pending, Respondents 1 and 2 by themselves or through their associates, agents, partners, relatives, representatives, supporters, and all other persons claiming by, through or under them or otherwise howsoever were restrained by a permanent order and injunction, from in any manner, making, publishing, or republishing and/or broadcasting or rebroadcasting and/or causing to be published or republished and/or causing to be broadcasting any defamatory and/or libellous or slanderous statements, videos, or articles or interview or statement in any form whatsoever or the statements in relation to which the applicant took objection to, on any of the social media portals including YouTube, Facebook, Twitter.
Further, the Court directed the respondents to take down all the six videos which were full of per se defamatory statements and innuendos in relation to the applicant.
The matter would next be listed on 20-6-2025.
[Girish Dattatray Mahajan v. Anil Thatte, Interim Application (L) No. 14438 of 2025, decided on 8-5-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant/Plaintiff: Ravi Kadam, Senior Counsel; Mayur Khandeparkar, Rohan Kadam, Prahlad Paranjpe, Shubra Paranjpe, Rushikesh Mundargi, Manish Kelkar, Subir Sarkar, Ativ Patel, Harshad Vyas, Viloma Shah, Viraj Raiyani, Yash Tembhe i/by AVP Partners, Advocates for the Applicant;
For the Respondents/Defendants: Charu Shukla for Defendant 3.
