Delhi District Court
Sh. Champat Lal Jain vs India Kanoon.Com on 24 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
CS No. 607790/16
CNR Number : DLWT030001922016
Sh. Champat Lal Jain,
S/o Sh. Babulal Jain,
R/o 4Q2052, Nirmal Pragi Nagar,
Tikkal Road, Vijaywada520008
.................Plaintiff
Versus
1.India Kanoon.com Through Sh. Sushant Sinha, Indian Kanoon, Bangalore560038.
2.Yahoo India Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Managing Director, 14th Floor, Building No.8, TowerC, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana122002. ................Defendants Date of Institution : 03.05.2016 Date on which judgment was reserved : 22.02.2021 Date of pronouncing judgment : 24.02.2021 SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION Exparte JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants and the persons claiming through them directing the defendants to remove/block the order dated 05.03.2015 passed in bail application no.2674/14 arising out of the FIR No.313/14 CS No. 607790/16 Champat Lal Jain v. India Kanoon. Com & others Page No. 1 of 11 under Section 406/420 IPC, PS Kirti Nagar. Further, a decree of permanent injunction is sought against the defendants and the persons claiming through them from loading, circulating and publishing the said order on their search engine.
Brief facts of the present case are as under :
2. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of glass manufacturing and acquired the reputation and goodwill in the field of manufacturing of safety glass of various qualities and standards. The defendants are Search Engines operating and functioning in India and abroad and any person can see any information in respect of legal matters, judicial precedents and cases while searching the website of the defendants.
3. One person namely Sh.Hitesh Kothari, S/o Sh. Jayanti Lal Kothari had registered a criminal case vide FIR No.313/14 under Section 420/406 IPC in PS Kirti Nagar against the defendant. The aforesaid criminal proceedings was instituted by invoking the provisions of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the plaintiff had moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and he was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 05.03.2015 by the Hon'ble High Court. It is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings has been instituted by Sh. Hitesh Kothari against the plaintiff by misusing and abusing the process of law to create pressure, force and coercion upon the plaintiff to extort the money and make the payment under the garb of the false criminal proceedings and the matter is of purely civil nature.
CS No. 607790/16 Champat Lal Jain v. India Kanoon. Com & others Page No. 2 of 11
4. The defendants circulated and loaded the order dated 05.03.2015 on their search engine, due to which the business of manufacturing of glass of the plaintiff has been completely ruined and spoiled. The reflection of the said order on the search engine of the defendants are continuously creating the confusion in the mind of the customers, suppliers, financiers, friends and relatives of the plaintiff, who have developed the notion that plaintiff is a criminal. Such information on search engine of the defendants are causing grave financial losses, injury, damage, loss of reputation and goodwill to the plaintiff.
5. The company Fuso Glass Inda Pvt. Ltd., where the plaintiff is a Director had applied for availing facilities from Kotak Mahindra Bank who at first sanctioned the loan and other facilities but just before releasing the fund, the Bank's legal department denied the availing of facilities after seeing the web page of website of Indian Kanoon through google search engine where the names of the plaintiff and his siblings appeared. The company has lost Rs.5 lacs paid to the Bank towards processing fee apart from the dent in the reputation and mental agony.
6. Similarly, Standard Chartered Bank has asked Navkar Impex Pvt. Ltd to close the dues by 31st May 2016 and pay back the loan of Rs.9 crores which was allowed for more than past 5 years. Thereafter, Navakar Impex Pvt. Ltd. approached IndusInd Bank who after sanctioning the limits, withdrew the same at the last minute stating that they could not go ahead as their legal department denied citing the CS No. 607790/16 Champat Lal Jain v. India Kanoon. Com & others Page No. 3 of 11 appearance of the order on the website of India Kanoon, which was verified through search engine of Google.
7. It is submitted that due to matter appearing on website if has ruined the business of not only the plaintiff but also the companies where the plaintiff's siblings are directors.
8. Plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 28.03.2016 on the website of the defendants directing the defendants to remove and block the order dated 05.03.2015 but the defendants failed to do the same. Hence, the present suit has been filed.
9. Defendant no.1 and 3 were duly served by way of email on 17.07.2018 but despite service, neither they had appeared nor any written statement had been filed on their behalf. Accordingly, defendant no.1 and 3 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 24.07.2018. Further, defendant no.2 i.e. Google India Pvt. Ltd. was duly served with the registered AD. On 31.08.2016, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 had appeared and filed written statement alongwith an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to delete the the defendant no.2 from array of parties. The said application was allowed vide order dated 30.04.2019.
10. Since no written statement was filed by the defendant no.1 and 3 and the defendant no.2 was already deleted, there was no occasion to frame the issues in the present case.
Exparte evidence by the plaintiff CS No. 607790/16 Champat Lal Jain v. India Kanoon. Com & others Page No. 4 of 11
11. In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1. He tendered his exparte evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
(i) Copy of order dated 05.03.2015 as Ex. PW1/1.
(ii) Copy of letters dated 18.02.2016, 19.02.2016 and 18.04.2016 as Ex. PW1/2 (colly).
(iii) Legal notice dated 28.03.2016 and its reply dated 12.04.2016 as Ex. PW1/3.
Thereafter, PE was closed.
Exparte Final Arguments
12. I have heard exparte final arguments as addressed by Sh. Anil Panday, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and gone through the Court record. Findings
13. The plaintiff, as every Indian Citizen, is entitled to his good name and esteem and has a right to claim that the reputation of the plaintiff shall not be disparaged by defamatory statements without lawful justification. It is also right to say that the freedom of speech and expression is not to be exercised in a way so as to constitute an infraction of the law relating to defamation. As every individual possesses the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in the Constitution, so also possesses a right to his reputation as well as right to privacy.
14. In Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International 2011 (178) DLT 705, the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as S. CS No. 607790/16 Champat Lal Jain v. India Kanoon. Com & others Page No. 5 of 11 Rangarajan v. P. Jagajivan Ram, 1989 (2) SCC 574 has been relied to submit that terms and expressions, in a defamation case, are not to be seen in isolation of their context, and the Court must allow a certain latitude to the author or maker who is exercising his right to free speech or fair criticisms in regard to matters of public concern.
15. The importance of free speech or fair criticisms in regard to matters of public concern, in matters of moment and issues that concern the people, cannot be undermined, and was recognized long ago in England, in Bonnard v. Perryman, [1891] 2 Ch 269, where it was held that exceptional caution has to be exercised by the Court while exercising jurisdiction to interfere by way of injunction. In the said decision, the Court highlighted that "...The right of free speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should possess, and,.... Until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at all has been infringed; and the importance of leaving free speech unfettered is a strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of interim injunctions..."
16. The English common law precedent on awarding interim injunctions in cases of defamation is set out by the case of Bonnard (supra) wherein it has been held that an interim injunction should not be awarded unless a defence of justification by the defendant was certain to fail at trial level. The Court's observations, widely applied in subsequent judgments are as follows:
CS No. 607790/16 Champat Lal Jain v. India Kanoon. Com & others Page No. 6 of 11 "... The subjectmatter of an action for defamation is so special as to require exceptional caution in exercising the jurisdiction to interfere by injunction before the trial of an action to prevent an anticipated wrong. The right of free speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should possess, and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment, so long as no wrongful act is done; and, unless an alleged libel is untrue, there is no wrong committed; but, on the contrary, often a very wholesome act is performed in the publication and repetition of an alleged libel. Until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at all has been infringed; and the importance of leaving free speech unfettered is a strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of interim injunctions..." In the case, indeed, the libellous character of the publication is beyond dispute, but the effect of it upon the Defendant can be finally disposed of only by a jury, and we cannot feel sure that the defence of justification is one which, on the facts which may be before them, the jury may find to be wholly unfounded; nor can we tell what may be the damages recoverable."
17. As per Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, the documents forming the Act, records of the Acts of public officers, legislative, judicial, executive of any part of India or of the common wealth or of a foreign country is a public document. Thus, Court cases / Court judgments/ orders are public records. When the defendant in the present matter has published the said order on the basis of facts collected from a CS No. 607790/16 Champat Lal Jain v. India Kanoon. Com & others Page No. 7 of 11 public record the same can be termed to be as enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. The same ratio has been held in the case of Reliance petrochemicals Ltd. v. proprietors of Indian Express News Papers reported in 1988 (4) SCC 592, wherein it is held that:
"...We must remember that the people at large have a right to know in order to be able to take part in a participatory development in the industrial life and democracy. Right to know is a basic right which citizens of a free country aspire in the broaden horizon of the right to live in this age on our land under Art. 21 of our Constitution. That right has reached new dimensions and urgency. That right, puts greater responsibility upon those, who take upon the responsibility to inform..."
18. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the order published is a misleading one and/ or the same is misrepresented by the defendant thereby depicting a false picture of the plaintiff. If a case is heard by a Court, no one can argue that the opinion should not be published and viewable by all, unless the Court itself expressly says it cannot be published or a law says it cannot be. The decisions of the Supreme Court are the law of the land, and all citizens can read their decisions. Not just the Supreme Court, Courts today are publishing their judgments and orders on the internet from where the details can be directly assessed.
19. I would like to quote the decision of the Hon'ble Apex courts in the case of Swatanter Kumar v. The Indian Express Ltd 2014 (1) SCC (Del) 572 wherein it is held that: In the case of Surya Prakash Khatri v. Madhu Trehan, 2001 (92) DLT 665 it has been held:
CS No. 607790/16 Champat Lal Jain v. India Kanoon. Com & others Page No. 8 of 11 "It is thus needless to emphasise that a free and healthy press is indispensable to the functioning of a true democracy. In a democratic set up there has to be an active and intelligent participation of the people in all spheres and affairs of their community as well as the State. It is their right to be kept informed about current political, social, economic and cultural life as well as the burning topics and important issues of the day in order to enable them to consider and form broad opinion about the same and the way in which they are being managed, tackled and administered by the Government and its functionaries. To achieve this objective the people need a clear and truthful account of events, so that they may form their own opinion and offer their own comments and viewpoints on such matters and issues and select their further course of action. The primary function, therefore, of the press is to provide comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of the country's political, social, economic and cultural life. It has an educative and mobilizing role to play. It plays an important role in moulding public opinion and can be an instrument of social change. It may be pointed out here that Mahatma Gandhi in his autobiography has stated that one of the objectives of the newspaper is to understand the proper feelings of the people and give expression to it; another is to arouse among the people certain desirable sentiments; and the third is to fearlessly express popular defects. It therefore turns out that the press should have the right to present anything which it thinks fit for publication. But it has to be remembered that this freedom of press is CS No. 607790/16 Champat Lal Jain v. India Kanoon. Com & others Page No. 9 of 11 not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as giving an unrestricted freedom of speech and expression would amount to an uncontrolled license..."
20. In the present case, plaintiff himself has admitted that the order dated 05.03.2015 Ex. PW1/1 is the anticipatory bail order in favour of the plaintiff. Publication of the said order which is true and correct, cannot be stating to be infringing any right of the plaintiff. Court cases are public records and there is no need for any permission to publish Court cases. The Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act states that publication of Court judgment does not constitute an infringement of Copyright. Further, in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Naidu decided on 07.10.1994 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the scope of right to privacy, it has been held that the publication of Court records will not constitute any violation of the right to privacy. The relevant portion is quoted as under :
"The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including Court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency [Article 19(2) an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should CS No. 607790/16 Champat Lal Jain v. India Kanoon. Com & others Page No. 10 of 11 not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being published in press/media..."
21. In these circumstances, the Court does not deem it fit to pass any injunction order against the defendants. As per Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, the order dated 05.03.2015 is a public document being the judicial record. In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed and no relief is granted. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar)
on 24th day of February 2021 SCJcumRC (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 11 pages.)
CS No. 607790/16 Champat Lal Jain v. India Kanoon. Com & others Page No. 11 of 11