<p>The Delhi High Court on Tuesday restrained Aam Aadmi Party and its leaders from posting any defamatory and incorrect information about Delhi's Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena. It ordered them to remove or delete those materials from all platforms, saying reputation of an individual earned over the years can't be tarnished due to reckless statements.</p>.<p>On a defamation suit by Saxena, a single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal passed an interim injunction against the Delhi's ruling party and its leaders, while holding, "On a prima facie view, the various statements/interviews/press conferences/tweets/re-tweets/<wbr />hashtags made by the defendants are per se defamatory."</p>.<p>The court note, "Those have been made in a reckless manner, without any factual verification, in order to tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff."</p>.<p>The court said reputation of a person is earned after years, which cannot be tarnished by any other individual in a casual manner. </p>.<p>"The damage caused to the reputation of an individual is immediate and far-reaching on the internet. So long as the impugned content continues to be in circulation and visible on social media, it is likely to cause continuing damage to the reputation and image of the plaintiff. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants," the bench said.</p>.<p>Ordering the party and leaders to remove the objectionable contents, the court also noted that in the present case, the plaintiff, being a Constitutional Authority, cannot meet the personal attacks being made by the defendants against him by taking resort to social media platforms. </p>.<p>The court rejected a contention on behalf of the defendants that in cases of defamation, so long as some material has been placed on record, the veracity of the allegations can only be tested in trial and the adequate remedy would be damages, not interim injunction. </p>.<p>"I do not agree with the said submission. In appropriate cases where the Court is of the view that statements are unsubstantiated and have been made in a reckless manner without regard to the truth, in order to cause injury to the reputation of the plaintiff, the Court would be justified in granting an interim injunction," the judge said.</p>.<p>Saxena sought temporary injunction against the AAP and its leaders, Sanjay Singh, Atishi Marlena, Saurabh Bhardwaj, Jasmine Shah and Durgesh Pathak, as they alleged the L-G had "indulged in money laundering during demonetisation, and gross misuse of power as the Chairman of the Khadi Gramodyog".</p>
<p>The Delhi High Court on Tuesday restrained Aam Aadmi Party and its leaders from posting any defamatory and incorrect information about Delhi's Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena. It ordered them to remove or delete those materials from all platforms, saying reputation of an individual earned over the years can't be tarnished due to reckless statements.</p>.<p>On a defamation suit by Saxena, a single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal passed an interim injunction against the Delhi's ruling party and its leaders, while holding, "On a prima facie view, the various statements/interviews/press conferences/tweets/re-tweets/<wbr />hashtags made by the defendants are per se defamatory."</p>.<p>The court note, "Those have been made in a reckless manner, without any factual verification, in order to tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff."</p>.<p>The court said reputation of a person is earned after years, which cannot be tarnished by any other individual in a casual manner. </p>.<p>"The damage caused to the reputation of an individual is immediate and far-reaching on the internet. So long as the impugned content continues to be in circulation and visible on social media, it is likely to cause continuing damage to the reputation and image of the plaintiff. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants," the bench said.</p>.<p>Ordering the party and leaders to remove the objectionable contents, the court also noted that in the present case, the plaintiff, being a Constitutional Authority, cannot meet the personal attacks being made by the defendants against him by taking resort to social media platforms. </p>.<p>The court rejected a contention on behalf of the defendants that in cases of defamation, so long as some material has been placed on record, the veracity of the allegations can only be tested in trial and the adequate remedy would be damages, not interim injunction. </p>.<p>"I do not agree with the said submission. In appropriate cases where the Court is of the view that statements are unsubstantiated and have been made in a reckless manner without regard to the truth, in order to cause injury to the reputation of the plaintiff, the Court would be justified in granting an interim injunction," the judge said.</p>.<p>Saxena sought temporary injunction against the AAP and its leaders, Sanjay Singh, Atishi Marlena, Saurabh Bhardwaj, Jasmine Shah and Durgesh Pathak, as they alleged the L-G had "indulged in money laundering during demonetisation, and gross misuse of power as the Chairman of the Khadi Gramodyog".</p>
