17Th September, 2018). Sasikala Pushpa vs Facebook India And Ors on 14 January, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

17Th September, 2018). Sasikala Pushpa vs Facebook India And Ors on 14 January, 2019

Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

$~13.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 510/2016, IA No.12386/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC), IA
      No.12387/2016 (u/O II R-2 CPC), IA No.12389/2016 (u/S 80 CPC) &
      IA No.17635/2018 (of defendant no.2 for clarification of order dated
      17th September, 2018).
      SASIKALA PUSHPA                                               ..... Plaintiff
                          Through: Mr. Bhavook Chauhaan, Adv.
                                    versus
      FACEBOOK INDIA AND ORS                                   ..... Defendants
                          Through: Ms. Richa Srivastava and Mr. Shijo
                                        George, Advs. for D-1.
                                        Mr. Neel Mason, Ms. Ridhima, Ms.
                                        Vennella Reddy and Ms. Kavya
                                        Mammen, Advs. for D-2&3.
                                        Mr. R. Mishra and Mr. M.K. Tiwari,
                                        Advs. for UOI.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                          ORDER

% 14.01.2019

1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit seeking directions for removal of certain photographs on the portal of Facebook, Google, YouTube etc. claim to be defamatory of the plaintiff.

2. No person, who according to the plaintiff is responsible for putting up of the said photographs has been impleaded and no direction has been sought against the aforesaid portals for disclosing the name of such person.

3. In my opinion, the plaintiff cannot fight a proxy battle without impleading the person who has put up the photographs, removal of which is sought.

4. The counsel for the plaintiff on enquiry also as to whom the plaintiff suspects, states that the plaintiff does not suspect anyone and there are a lot CS(OS) 510/2016 page 1 of 2 of people inimical to her because she is a Member of Parliament from Rajya Sabha.

4. The counsel for the plaintiff has also shown the photographs to which objection is taken and on going through the same, prima facie I am unable to find anything objectionable in the photographs.

5. I am also of the opinion that an order of removal against the portals cannot be made merely at the asking, without a case therefor being made out.

6. The counsel for the plaintiff, on enquiry as to under which provision of law the plaintiff is entitled to seek removal of photographs put up by others even if not found to be objectionable, except for relying on the interim order dated 4th October, 2016 is unable to state anything.

7. The plaintiff, to be entitled to final relief, is required to justify the interim order and cannot shy away from answering the questions of the Court.

8. The counsel for the plaintiff now seeks adjournment.

9. List on 27th February, 2019.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JANUARY 14, 2019 'pp'..

CS(OS) 510/2016                                                          page 2 of 2

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders