Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (3.28 seconds)Mahesh Murthy vs Pooja Chauhan & Ors. on 6 July, 2020
31. Reliance was also sought to be placed on the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench of this court in the case of Swatanter Kumar vs. The Indian Express
Ltd. & Ors. (supra) wherein this court held as follows:-
Dr Rajesh Gowda C M vs M/S Powersmart Media (Opc) Pvt Ltd on 15 February, 2024
In the case of Swatanter Kumar vs. The Indian Express
Ltd and Others, reported in 2014 SCC Online Del 210,
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi examined the right of
the media under Article 19 of the Constitution of India,
particularly in a context where the petitioner, a former
Supreme Court judge, faced allegations of sexual
harassment that were repeatedly published by the
defendants. The Hon'ble High Court, after considering
the background of the episode, held as below;
Dr. Rajeev Bindal vs . Desh Raj Labana & Others. on 9 November, 2022
Shri Om Prakash Lakhyani Trustee vs Union Of India on 26 May, 2023
In support of such submission, reliance was placed on the
judgments/orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of
Akhtari Bi Vs. State of M.P. (2001) 4 SCC 355; Swatanter
Kumar Vs. The Indian Express Ltd. and Ors. (I.A. No.
723/2014 in CS(OS) No. 102/2014 decided on 16.01.2014)
and; Sidhartha Vaishist Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6
SCC 1; and the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this
Hon'ble Court in the case of Asharam @ Ashumal Vs State
(D.B. Criminal Appeal No.123/2018 decided on
25.01.2022).
Naveen Jindal & Anr. vs Zee Media Corporation Ltd. & Ors. on 1 April, 2014
26. I am cognizant of the fact that it is not unusual in a given case
where a pre-publication restraint order has been passed by this court
although both the parties have not cited the judgment of Swatanter
Kumar vs. The Indian Express Ltd. & Others passed by this court in C.S.
(OS) No.102/2014 on 16.1.2014 in which a pre-publication restraint order
was passed against reporting his name or photograph and without giving
his side of the story but the facts of that case were slightly different than
the facts of the present case. In the said case, the plaintiff was a former
Judge of the Supreme Court and present holder of a position of Chairman
of an important tribunal. Further, by virtue of his holding of a past office
and the present one, he was under an obligation not to have publically
refuted the allegations made against him which is unlike in the case of a
person who has been a sitting MP on two occasions and is aspiring to get
C.S. (OS) No.881/2014 Page 31 of 36
elected for the third time where he has ample opportunity to address the
public, hold a press conference, give his side of the story despite the fact
that the guidelines of the NBSA also laid down that in such cases where
they are reporting about the accusations, televising agency must give the
views by the aggrieved party also. Therefore, so far as the judgment of
former judge Mr. Justice Kumar is concerned, that is totally
distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
Housing Development Finance ... vs Sureshchandra V Parekh & on 20 March, 2014
54. Above principals are reaffirmed in recent judgment
dated 16 January, 2014 of the Delhi High Court in the case
between Swatanter Kumar V/S Indian Express Ltd & Ors
I.A. No.723/2014 in CS (OS) No.102/2014 when it is
observed in para 32 that freedom of expression in press and
media is the part of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India
where by all the citizens have a right to express their view.
However, the said right of the expression is also not absolute
but is subjected to the reasonable restrictions imposed by the
Parliament or State in the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations
with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in
relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an
offence. The said position is clear from the plain reading of
the Article 19(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India.
Naveen Jindal vs M/S Zee Media Corporation Ltd & Anr on 5 March, 2015
24. This High Court had also the occasion to deal with the entire gamut
of judgments on this issue in the case of Swatanter Kumar vs. The Indian
Express Ltd. & Ors.(supra) in CS(OS) 102/2014 passed on 16.01.2014.
This Court held that it had power to restrain publication in media if it
CS(OS) 143/2015 Page 19 of 42
arrives at a finding that the publication may result in interference with the
administration of justice or against the principle of fair trial or open justice.
The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
The High Court Bar Association Odisha vs State Of Odisha And Others on 17 February, 2017
30. A similar case came up before the Delhi
High Court wherein by irresponsible reporting by the
Press, reputation of a retired Judge of the Supreme
Court was affected. The Delhi High Court in the said
case of Swatanter Kumar v. The Indian Express,
(2014)1 High Court Cases (Del) 572, relying on the
judgment in the Sahara's case (supra) and other
earlier judgments of the Apex Court, issued directions
to the defendants therein [which included the Print
and Electronic Media and any other person(s)]
restraining them from publication of matters relating
to the incident involved in that case.
Shivsankar Mohanty vs The Registrar Judicial Orissa High ... on 17 February, 2017
30. A similar case came up before the Delhi
High Court wherein by irresponsible reporting by the
Press, reputation of a retired Judge of the Supreme
Court was affected. The Delhi High Court in the said
case of Swatanter Kumar v. The Indian Express,
(2014)1 High Court Cases (Del) 572, relying on the
judgment in the Sahara's case (supra) and other
earlier judgments of the Apex Court, issued directions
to the defendants therein [which included the Print
and Electronic Media and any other person(s)]
restraining them from publication of matters relating
to the incident involved in that case.