Credit: X/@VSReddy_MP
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed several media houses to take down and block the URLs of certain videos and posts on social media which contained defamatory statements against Rajya Sabha MP Venumbaka Vijaya Sai Reddy.
The high court, in an interim order, said if the media houses fail to remove the URLs within 10 days, the Member of Parliament will be at liberty to approach and request the intermediaries, including Google, Meta Platforms and X, which must then take them down within 36 hours.
The high court in its observation expressed displeasure over the spreading of rumours, especially when it has the potential to affect the dignity of a woman and the reputation of a person.
“Perusal of such statements further reveal that most of them are based on rumours and it is trite law that rumours unlike truth must not be acted upon as an information for dissemination before the public at large especially when such rumours can potentially affect the dignity of a woman as well as the reputation of a person with whom the name of the woman is sought to be attached,” Justice Vikas Mahajan said.
The high court issued summons to the defendant media houses and the intermediaries on the suit and asked them to file their written statements within 30 days, while listing the matter for further hearing on November 25.
In the suit, Reddy has sought damages, permanent and mandatory injunction against the media houses on the ground that they have allegedly made false, derogatory, scandalous, illegal and defamatory statements against him on multiple social media platforms.
The YSR Congress MP, represented by advocates Amit Agrawal, Sahil Raveen, and Rahul Kukreja submitted that the plaintiff is a prominent public figure currently serving as a Rajya Sabha MP for Andhra Pradesh and is a politician of impeccable reputation and goodwill in the general public.
The plaintiff, also represented by advocates Sana Jain and Arjun Chhibbar, contended that the news channels and digital platforms have disseminated defamatory and false insinuations against him and the statements being made and aired publicly not only violate his right to have reputation, but also caused extreme mental agony and distress to him and his family members.
The counsel for one of the media houses submitted that no allegation of defamation could be levelled against the news channel when it was broadcasting a live press conference, and the balance has to be struck between the right to privacy and the freedom of press.
To this, the court said it was a trite law that the freedom of speech was not an unfettered right and in case, the libel concerned was prima facie untrue, the ad interim injunction may be granted.
The court said it was of the prima facie view that there was substance in the submissions of the plaintiff's counsel that the alleged videos and posts contain defamatory and libellous allegations and insinuations, made in reckless manner without regard to the truth, to injure his reputation.
"I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of ad interim relief. I am also satisfied that grave and irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the plaintiff, if ad interim injunctive orders are not passed in his favour. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff," the judge said.