Swami Ramdev & Anr vs Facebook, Inc. & Ors on 24 January, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Swami Ramdev & Anr vs Facebook, Inc. & Ors on 24 January, 2019

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

$~20
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                         CS(OS) 27/2019
       SWAMI RAMDEV & ANR.                                  ..... Plaintiffs
                          Through:    Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate with
                                      Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Sonali Dhir &
                                      Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal, Advocates (M-
                                      9205109664)

                          versus

       FACEBOOK, INC. & ORS.                              ..... Defendants
                    Through:          Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
                                      with Mr. Tejas Karia, Ms. Richa
                                      Srivastava, Mr. Shijo George, Ms.
                                      Pallavi Chopra, Mr. Dhruv Bhatnagar
                                      & Mr. Rishabh, Advocates for D-1.
                                      Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate with
                                      Ms. Shruttima Ehersa & Ms. Sakshi
                                      Jhalani, Advocates for Google &
                                      YouTube. (M-8814048526)

       CORAM:
       JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                    ORDER

% 24.01.2019 I.A. 855/2019 (u/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

1. The Defendants 1-4 have been served. They have entered appearance. It is submitted by Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Ld. Senior Counsel that Defendant No.1 ought to be read as only Facebook Inc. and not Facebook Ireland as the latter has no role to play in the present case. Facebook Inc. is retained as Defendant No.1 with the address given in the memo of parties. Facebook Ireland is accordingly deleted.

CS(OS) 27/2019 Page 1 of 3

2. It is submitted by Mr. Arvind Nigam, Ld. Senior Counsel for Defendants No. 2 and 3 that Defendant No.4 - Google Plus is not an entity but is only of the products of Defendant No.2 - Google Inc. Defendant No.4 is accordingly deleted from the array of parties.

3. Defendants No.1 to 3 are now duly represented.

4. The present suit has been filed by Swami Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Limited seeking an injunction against Facebook, YouTube, Google and Twitter directing them to remove/pull down the links to the video which has been shown to the Court today. The submission of Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Ld. Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs is that the video is based on a book titled as 'Godman to Tycoon - The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev'. The English transcription of the said video which is in Hindi language has been extracted in the plaint at pages 23 to 31.

5. The submission on behalf of the Plaintiffs is that the video seeks to communicate to the public, content which was deleted/banned vide order dated 29th September, 2008 passed by a Ld. Single Judge of this Court. The said judgment in CM(M) 556/2018 wherein the Ld. Single Judge had restrained the Defendants i.e. the Publisher and the Author from publishing, distributing and selling the book titled 'Godman to Tycoon - The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev' without deleting the offending portions, has been placed before the Court.

6. A perusal of the transcript of the video shows that similar allegations as contained in the offending portions of the book which were directed to be deleted, are also contained in the video. The said judgment has been appealed against in the Supreme Court. However, there is no stay as per the Ld. Counsels for the Plaintiffs. Considering that the allegations made are CS(OS) 27/2019 Page 2 of 3 similar to the allegations which were directed to be deleted by the said order, a prima facie case is made out for grant of injunction. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and irreparable injury would be caused if the interim order as prayed for is not granted. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the Defendants 1 - 3, submit that the Defendants are willing to block the said URLs/disable them for the India domain. Till the next date, the Defendants are directed to remove/block/disable the URLs and weblinks connected to the offending video for the India domain. The URLs are mentioned at pages 19 to 24 of the documents filed by the Plaintiff. The blocking/disabling be given effect forthwith and, in any event, no later than 72 hours.

7. The question as to whether the said URLs also deserve to be blocked globally, would be heard on the next date. A short reply on this issue be filed by the Defendants within two weeks.

8. The basic subscriber information for the entity/person/s, which/who has uploaded the said video, be placed in a sealed cover.

9. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 in respect of Twitter International be done within two working days. The Registry is directed to transfer the video from the CD filed by the Plaintiff and download it on to the e-file of the case record.

10. List on 5th April, 2019.

11. Order dasti.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

JANUARY 24, 2019 Rahul CS(OS) 27/2019 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders