Delhi High Court: Rajat Sharma has filed a lawsuit demanding a permanent injunction and damages amounting to INR 100 crores

Delhi High Court: Rajat Sharma has filed a lawsuit demanding a permanent injunction and damages amounting to INR 100 crores

Rajat Sharma, a prominent Indian journalist and TV anchor, as well as the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of M/s Independent News Service Private Limited (INDIA TV), has filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Congress leaders. The lawsuit arises from a televised debate on the India TV Channel, where the Congress leaders allegedly misrepresented Sharma's conduct and circulated edited footage on social media. Rajat Sharma claimed that no abusive language was used during the debate and accused the Congress leaders of spreading falsehoods, causing significant damage to his reputation.

The court noted that Rajat Sharma, a respected senior journalist, was performing his professional duties during a debate on the Lok Sabha Elections. Following this, Congress leaders made statements against him on 'X' (formerly 'Twitter') and during a press conference on June 10 and 11, 2024, alleging abusive language during a live telecast on June 4, 2024. Upon reviewing the footage in court, it was clear that Sharma had only briefly intervened and did not use abusive language.

The court held that while public criticism and postings on intermediary platforms like X carry a higher threshold, personal dignity and reputation cannot be undermined under the guise of free speech. The courts are tasked with balancing these competing rights.

Furthermore, the bench observed that despite no abuse from Rajat Sharma, subsequent videos and posts misrepresented the facts, potentially damaging Sharma’s reputation. Given these considerations, the court found that allowing the videos and posts to remain in the public domain would cause irreparable harm to Sharma’s reputation as a journalist.

Hon'ble Delhi High Court Observation:

The court emphasized that an ex parte injunction should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. It outlined several factors to consider: whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm, whether denying the injunction would lead to greater injustice, the timing of the plaintiff's awareness of the issue, any acquiescence by the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff approached the court in good faith, and whether the injunction would be temporary.

The Delhi High Court, on Friday, observed that there is a fine line between defamation and public criticism. The court emphasized that while the right to free speech and expression is crucial, it does not justify defaming or tarnishing someone's reputation. The court observed, “The irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff for if the videos and Tweets, etc as mentioned above, is allowed to be in the public domain, it would continue to cause harm to his reputation as a respectable Journalist which would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff”.

The irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff for if the videos and Tweets, etc as mentioned above, is allowed to be in the public domain, it would continue to cause harm to his reputation as a respectable Journalist which would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff. No harm would be caused to the defendants if the material is restrained from remaining in public domain till the suit is adjudicated on merits, while these tweets have a potential of bringing disrepute to the Plaintiff in future with practically no reparation to the damage to his reputation. The applicant/plaintiff may have quantified damages for defamation and to his reputation but if such videos are permitted to remain in public, the harm already caused, would get perpetuated in future. Therefore, the irreparable loss would be caused to the applicant/plaintiff in case the injunction as sought by the applicant/plaintiff is not granted.

The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff for the simple reason that by making these videos private or injuncting them from being available on the public platforms, would not, in any way, infringe on the rights of the defendants of freedom of speech and expression which they can, in any case, exercise within the defined parameters. However, the inconvenience that would result from these videos and X posts/Tweets etc., continuing to remain in public domain, has the potential to cause an inconvenience which may not be possible to be reparated or compensated by damages or otherwise, in future.

From the aforesaid discussion, it is directed that the X Posts/Tweets (URLs annexed as ‘Annexure-1’) which have not been removed, be removed within seven days by defendants in terms of the Intermediary Guidelines. It is further directed that the videos which are in the public domain be made private by defendant No.2 and not to be put in the public domain, without the Orders of this Court.

Download Delhi High Court Order/Judgment in Case of Rajat Sharma