Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Rajya Sabha member Venumbaka Vijaya Sai Reddy (‘V. Vijaya Sai Reddy’) to seek damages as well as permanent and mandatory injunction against defendants 1 to 6 on the ground that they had made false, derogatory, scandalous, illegal, and defamatory statements against him on multiple social media platforms, a Single Judge Bench of Vikas Mahajan, J. granted ad interim injunction to V. Vijaya Sai Reddy and directed the defendants to take down the impugned posts and videos that contained defamatory statements against him.
Background
V. Vijaya Sai Reddy submitted that he was a politician of repute and had an impeccable reputation as well as goodwill amongst the general public at large. He contended that ABN Andhra Jyothi (defendant 1) operated by Aamoda Publications Pvt. Ltd., Mahaa News (defendant 2), TV5 News (defendant 3), BIG TV (defendant 4), Aadhan Media Pvt. Ltd. (defendant 5), and Wild Wolf TV (defendant 6) were the news channels and digital platforms that had disseminated defamatory and false insinuations against him.
YouTube LLC, Google LLC, Meta Platform Inc., WhatsApp LLC, and X Corp. (Twitter) were defendants 7 to 11 in the present matter.
V. Vijaya Sai Reddy submitted that on 16-07-2024, ABN Andhra Jyothi broadcasted a program which was a recorded panel discussion between five persons wherein it was falsely discussed that he was engaged in an extra-marital affair with Mrs. X.
It was also discussed that Mrs. X. was granted exclusive access to restricted areas during the COVID-19 lockdown and was involved in questionable land transactions with a false claim that significant sums of money were exchanged between Reddy, Mrs. X, and her husband.
V. Vijaya Sai Reddy submitted that a similar program was broadcasted by Mahaa News on 17-07-2024 wherein the same insinuations were made against him. He also submitted that on 15-07-2023, TV5 News broadcasted a program wherein it was said that V. Vijaya Sai Reddy shamelessly continues to be a member of Rajya Sabha despite being rejected by the people of Nellore and that he should undergo a DNA test to prove his innocence.
V. Vijaya Sai Reddy submitted that BIG TV, Aadhan Media Pvt. Ltd., and Wild Wolf TV had also broadcasted shows of a similar nature wherein dishonest and vexatious interviews were shown without verifying the baseless allegations.
V. Vijaya Sai Reddy also contended that the programs broadcasted were not live panel discussions or press conferences but were recorded programs wherein the anchor was seen prompting and trying to elicit defamatory statements against him by the panelists.
It was submitted that such statements made and aired publicly did not only violate V. Vijaya Sai Reddy’s right to have a reputation as was enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution but also caused mental agony and distress to him as well as his family members. V. Vijaya Sai Reddy also said that the defamatory statements made by the news channels were not only disseminated by their broadcasting networks but also through their social media platforms.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that a perusal of the transcript of the transcript of video dated 15-07-2024 of Mahaa News which was available on YouTube revealed that the said video was a recorded panel discussion wherein it was stated that Mrs. X had become pregnant and delivered a child among other allegations.
Similarly, the Court perused the transcripts of the rest of the impugned videos as well as the screenshots of the news articles, videos uploaded on Facebook as well as various posts published by unknown persons.
The Court prima facie found substance in the submissions made by V. Vijaya Sai Reddy that the videos and posts contained defamatory and libelous allegations that were made recklessly without considering the truth, only to injure his reputation.
Further, the Court said that perusal of the statements revealed that most of them were based on rumors and stated that it was trite law that rumors must not be disseminated before the public at large especially when they can potentially affect the dignity of a woman as well as the reputation of the person with whom the name of the woman is sought to be attached.
The Court stated that V. Vijaya Sai Reddy was a sitting member of Rajya Sabha and such baseless allegations not only brought his name into disrepute but also had the potential of adversely affecting his political career and reputation built carefully over the years.
The Court referred to Hanuman Beniwal v. Vinay Mishra 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4882 wherein it was observed that the public image of political functionaries which was built by hard work during their lifetime could not be permitted to be tumbled by baseless or defamatory statements made by any political entity/individual for petty gains.
The Court further said that it was satisfied that V. Vijaya Sai Reddy had made out a case for a grant of ad interim relief and that grave and irreparable loss would be caused to him if ad interim injunctive orders were not passed in his favour.
While considering the submission made by ABN Andhra Jyothi, the Court referred to Bonnard v. Perryman1 and said that even though the fundamental right to free speech must be balanced with the right to reputation and privacy, it was trite law that the freedom of speech was not an unfettered right and in the present matter the libel concerned was prima facie untrue which meant that an ad interim injunction could be granted.
Thus, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct defendants 1 to 6 to take down/remove/restrict access/block the URLs of the YouTube videos, posts on Google, videos on Facebook as well as posts on X which contained defamatory statements against V. Vijaya Sai Reddy within 10 days.
Further, the Court said that in case defendants 1 to 6 fail to follow the above-mentioned direction, V. Vijaya Sai Reddy would be at liberty to approach and request defendants 7 to 11 to take down the URLs. Defendants 7 to 11 were directed to take down the URLs within 36 hours of being approached by V. Vijaya Sai Reddy.
The matter is listed before the Court on 25-11-2024.
[Venumbaka Vijaya Sai Reddy v. Aamoda Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5534, Decided on 08-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Plaintiff — Advocate Amit Agarwal, Advocate Sahil Raveen, Advocate Rahul Kukreja, Advocate Sana Jain, Advocate Arjun Chhibbar
For Defendants — Advocate Samarth Krishna Luthra, Advocate Chirag Kakkar, Advocate Mamta R. Jha, Advocate Rohan Ahuja, Advocate Shruttima Ehersa, Advocate Rahul Choudhary
Buy Constitution of India HERE
1. [1891] 2 Ch. 269
