Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a case concerning a prayer for interim injunction, a Single Judge Bench of Sachin Datta, J., permitted Saurav Das to amend the memo of parties as well as the plaint for substituting the name of Defendant 4 from “Information TV Private Limited” to “Good Morning India Private Limited”, stated to be the entity publishing the newspaper The Sunday Guardian. The Court directed the amended memo of parties and plaint to be filed within one week and ordered issuance of summons in the suit.
In IA No. 22997 of 2026, taking note of the urgency emphasised by senior counsel for Saurav Das, the Court directed the defendants to file their reply within 10 days and permitted rejoinder thereto, if any, to be filed before the next date of hearing. The Court also recorded the submission on behalf of Defendant 6 that the links referred to in the Schedule were “no longer accessible”. The matter was directed to be listed before the Court on 14 September 2026.
At the outset, senior counsel for Saurav Das sought leave to amend the memo of parties as well as the plaint for the purpose of substituting the name of Defendant 4, namely, “Information TV Private Limited”, with “Good Morning India Private Limited”, which was stated to be the entity that publishes the newspaper “The Sunday Guardian”.
The Court permitted the amendment and directed that the amended memo of parties as well as the amended plaint be filed within one week from the date of the order. The amended plaint was thereafter directed to be registered as a suit.
The Court issued summons in the suit, with learned counsel appearing for the defendants accepting notice.
The defendants were directed to file their written statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of the amended plaint, along with an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff. The Court clarified that, failing such affidavit, the written statement would not be taken on record.
Saurav Das was granted liberty to file replication within 30 days after filing of the written statement, accompanied by an affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the defendants. The Court further observed that “any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.”
The matter was directed to be listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 8 October 2026 for completion of service, pleadings, admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits.
In IA No. 22997 of 2026, concerning the prayer for interim injunction, the Court issued notice, which was accepted by learned counsel appearing for the defendants. Taking note of the urgency emphasised by senior counsel for Saurav Das, the Court directed the defendants to file their reply within 10 days from the date of the order. Rejoinder thereto, if any, was directed to be filed before the next date of hearing.
During the hearing, learned counsel appearing for Defendant 6 submitted that the links referred to in the Schedule, namely the URLs reproduced in the order, were “no longer accessible.”
The Court directed the matter to be listed before the Court on 14 September 2026.
Also Read: SC Orders Release of Detained Minors in NEET Paper Leak Protests| SCC Times
Also Read: SC clarifies ‘criminal antecedents’ in NEET protest case | SCC Times
[Saurav Das v. The Pamphlet, CS(OS) 753 of 2026, decided on 24-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Krishnesh Bapat, Samyak Gangwal, Ayush Shrivastava and Shivansh Agarwal, Advocates
For the Defendant: Percival Billomoria, Sr. Adv., Abhinav Chandrachud, Pranav Sarthi, Vinayak Chitale, Rhea Rao, Prachi Dhingra, Udit Bajpai, Jai Anand D, Yashvi Aswani, Rachita Sood, Priyamvada Paneru, Anandi Katiyar, Janay Jain, Ninad Dogra, Bhagabati Prasad, Amita Sachdeva, Amandeep, Aditya Gupta, Vani Kaushik, Rohith Venkatesand, Advocates
