Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajesh Bothra vs 4Pm News Network Private Limited & Ors on 24 December, 2024
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 646/2024 & I.A. 49989/2024 I.A. 49990/2024
RAJESH BOTHRA .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Dhruv Suri, Ms. Urvika Suri and Ms.
Aastha Mathur, Advs.
versus
4PM NEWS NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS......Defendant
Through: Ms. Shruttima Ehersha, Adv. for D-3
(Through VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 24.12.2024 I.A. 49989/2024(under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2)
1. This is a fresh application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') for issuance of directions to defendant no. 3 for de-indexing additional false and defamatory contents uploaded on the YouTube and other websites against the applicant/plaintiff.
2. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff/applicant states that the contents of the new uploads are similar if not identical to the contents which were perused by this Court and injuncted vide judgment dated 23.08.2024. 2.1 He states that the plaintiff has come across three websites which contain allegations identical with the original defamatory video. He states that the nexus between the three websites is also evident as the 'contact CS(OS) 646/2024 Page 1 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2024 at 22:18:43 section' for the said websites provides common e-mail. He states that plaintiff has come across multiple AI generated videos on defendant no. 3's YouTube platform echoing the allegations made in the original defamatory video. He states that the predecessor bench vide judgment dated 23.08.2024 has already issued directions to the defendants to take down and block the said defamatory video. The operative part of the judgment read as under:
"
.....
65. On an overall conspectus, it is prima facie clear that the insinuations made in the alleged video as well as in the news article are per se defamatory and made against the plaintiff and his company in order to malign their reputation before the public at large. The manner in which the defendant no. 2 has projected and portrayed the unsubstantiated facts and figures to call the plaintiff names, shows the intention of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 is only to sensationalize the allegations to increase the viewership of the video, which cannot be countenanced at the cost of reputational damage to the plaintiff and his family. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to justify the allegations made in offending video by the defendant nos.1-2, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ad interim order in his favour. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. I am satisfied that the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss and injury, if an ad interim order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff is not granted. ........
68. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the defendant nos. l, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are directed to take down / remove / restrict access / block the below mentioned URLs which contain defamatory statements against the plaintiff within a period of two weeks in the following manner:
.....
69. In the event the defendant nos. l, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 fail to take down / remove / restrict access / block the aforementioned URLs within the period of two weeks, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to approach and request the defendant no. 3 (Google), and the latter, in that eventuality, shall take down the URLs as mentioned in paragraph 68 above, within a period of 36 hours of such request.
70. Since some of the links containing defamatory statements have come to the knowledge of the plaintiff only after the filing of the present suit and as the entities which have posted the defamatory contents could not be made parties to the present lis, the defendant no. 3 / Google is directed to take down / remove / restrict access / block the below mentioned URLs within CS(OS) 646/2024 Page 2 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2024 at 22:18:43 the period of two weeks:
i. https://voutube.com/shorts/AJB2zvS7oM4?si=waqONj7vUTP3aZN C ii. https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/markets/biggestfinancialscam-
rajesh-rashmi-bothra-accused-ofdefraudingbanks-of-rs-12000- crore/ar-AAIoDpW2? ocid=financeverthp- feeds iii. https ://www. msn. com/en- in/money/markets/investment firmaccused-of-rs-12000-crore-bank-fraud-report/ar-AAloBU5X iv. https://businessworld.in/article/new-allegations-of-rs12000- crorefraud-bring-rb-investment-couple-under-investigation-529334 ...."
2.2 He states that the directions which already stand issued at paragraph nos. 68 to 70 be also extended to the URLs which have been specifically enlisted at prayer clause (I) and (II) and (V) of this application. 2.3 He states that in addition, the plaintiff seeks a direction to defendant no. 3 to also provide the Basic Subscriber Information ('BSI') qua the accounts enlisted at prayer clause (IV).
2.4 He states that the plaintiff also seeks a direction to defendant no. 3 to take down and block access of the Gmail accounts enlisted at prayer clause (III) of the captioned application. He states that these Gmail accounts are in the name of the plaintiff, however these are not plaintiff's Gmail addresses.
He states that these Gmail addresses are enlisted in the websites perpetuating the defamatory video.
2.5 He states that the plaintiff also seeks a direction to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications, Internet Service Providers ('MeitY') to block access to the URLs of the websites enlisted in prayer clause (V), as these websites which have published contents which has already been injuncted by this Court vide judgment dated 23.08.2024. He states that MeitY is not a party to this suit, however, a direction can be issued to the said Ministry even CS(OS) 646/2024 Page 3 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2024 at 22:18:44 without impleading them.
3. Ms. Shruttima Ehersha, Advocate enters appearance on behalf of defendant no. 3 through video conferencing link.
3.1. She states that defendant no. 3 will comply with the directions issued by this Court. She states, however, it would be appropriate if a direction is also issued to uploaders to take down the contents, which have been complained of by the applicant/plaintiff in this application. She states that if the uploaders fail to take down videos, defendant no. 3 will abide by the direction issued by the Court.
4. None appears of behalf of defendant no. 2.
5. This Court has heard the parties.
6. The predecessor bench vide judgment dated 21.08.2024 at paragraph 65 after perusing the original defamatory video returned a prima facie finding in favour of the plaintiff and directed removal of the said defamatory video by the uploader and the intermediaries. The relevant paragraphs are 65, 68, 69 and 70 of the said judgment, which have been referred to above.
7. The effect of the order dated 21.08.2024 cannot be negated by uploading the said defamatory video through other websites and URLs.
8. In view of the assertion made in the application that the contents of the URLs and websites enlisted in the prayer clause of this application are identical to the original defamatory video directed to be taken down vide judgment dated 23.08.2024, the following directions are hereby passed:
8.1. The uploaders of the defamatory videos enlisted in the URLs and websites at prayer clauses (I) and (II) are directed to take down the said URLs and websites within 36 hours.
8.2. In the event the uploaders do not take down the said URLs within 36 CS(OS) 646/2024 Page 4 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2024 at 22:18:44 hours, Defendant no. 3 is directed to act in accordance with the 'Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021' and ensure removal/de-indexing of URLs within a period of 36 hours.
8.3. Defendant no. 3 is directed to provide plaintiff BSI of the YouTube and Gmail accounts which are enlisted in prayer clause (IV) of the captioned application.
8.4. Defendant no. 3 is further directed to take down and block the access to the Gmail accounts which find mention in the prayer clause (III) of the captioned application. The said direction has been issue keeping in view the averments made at paragraph 3.6 and 3.13 of the application.
9. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff states that despite best attempts, the plaintiff has been unable to identify the persons responsible for creating the offending websites enlisted at prayer clause (V) of this application. He states that in these circumstances plaintiff has no remedy available to it to have the said website remove the offending defamatory video. He states in these circumstances direction as prayed for in prayer clause (V) is the only remedy available to the plaintiff. 9.1. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the plaintiff and the judgment dated 23.08.2024, in case the uploaders/creators of the offending website do not take down the said website within 36 hours, MeitY is directed to issue appropriate directions for blocking access to the URLs mentioned in prayer clause (V) of the captioned application.
9.2. In view of the fact that a direction has been issued to MeitY, therefore, the concerned Ministry is impleaded as defendant no. 9 in the array of parties. The plaintiff is directed to file amended memo of parties CS(OS) 646/2024 Page 5 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2024 at 22:18:45 within one (1) week.
9.3. The plaintiff is directed to comply with provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within 48 hours. Affidavit of compliance be filed within one (1) week.
10. Issue notice to the non-applicants including newly impleaded defendant no. 9. Defendant no. 9 will be served through standing counsel for Union of India, in addition.
11. List before the Roster Bench on 02.04.2025, the date already fixed.
12. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J DECEMBER 24, 2024/hp/ms Click here to check corrigendum, if any CS(OS) 646/2024 Page 6 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2024 at 22:18:45