Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11.9. Mr.Damle, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff is seeking the order of blanket injunction against Defendants' servants, authorised representative, party members and all others on whom he will have no direct control and therefore such order be not granted.

11.10. He relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court reported in (2002) 61 DRJ 123 in Harsh Mendiratta vs Maharaj Singh And Ors. to substantiate his arguments that an action for defamation is maintainable only by the person who is defamed and not by his friends, relatives and family members. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221 in the matter between Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India particularly paragraphs 66 to 75 and paragraphs 179 to 185. He thus submitted that no ad-interim injunction be granted.

Privacy attaches to the person since it is an essential facet of the dignity of the human being;"

12.2. In Subramanian Swamy (supra), the Supreme Court has discussed meaning of the term "Defamation" and concept of "Reputation". The relevant portion of paragraph 23, 25, 28, 29 and 30 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"23. Meaning of the term "defamation"

"23.1 Salmond & Heuston on the Law of Torts, 20th Edn.7 de- fine a "defamatory statement" as under:

12.5. Thus although the Plaintiff and his family members are having right to privacy which is part of Article 21, the Defendant is having right to freedom of speech and expression subject to the restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Thus in this case it is necessary to balance fundamental rights of the Plaintiff and that of the Defendant.

12.6. In Subramanian Swamy (supra) the Supreme Court has discussed the concept of balancing of fundamental rights. The question before the Supreme Court was whether section 499 and 500 hcs/Priya/Sonali IAL-25975 - 2021 IN SUIT L 25974-2021.doc of Indian Penal Code are violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion of paragraphs 136, 137 and 144 are set out hereinbelow:-

(Emphasis supplied) 12.7. In Subramanian Swamy (supra) although Supreme Court was concerned with section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code, civil action hcs/Priya/Sonali IAL-25975 - 2021 IN SUIT L 25974-2021.doc in case of defamation in the absence of codified law was considered. The relevant discussion in paragraph 66 to 69 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

"66. We have referred to the aforesaid aspect only to highlight the intention of the Founding Fathers and also how contextually the word "defamation" should be understood. At this stage, we may state that in the course of hearing, an endeavour was made even to the extent of stating that the word "defamation" may not even call for a civil action in the absence of a codified law. In this regard, we may usefully refer to M.C Setalvad's Hamlyn Lectures (Twelfth Series) "The Common Law in India" wherein India's first Attorney General expressed that: "an important branch of law which has remained uncodified in India is the law relating to civil wrongs.