In CS(OS) 593/2022-DEL HC- Freedom of speech & expression is not unfettered right: Delhi HC directs Aam Aadmi Party to remove all defamatory or factually incorrect social media posts against Delhi LG  
Justice Amit Bansal [27-08-2022]

Read Order:VINAI KUMAR SAXENA Vs. AAM AADMI PARTY & ORS

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, September 28, 2022: Spelling out the contours of free speech, the Delhi High Court has opined that the fundamental right to freedom of speech has to be counterbalanced with the right of reputation of an individual while also observing that  various defamatory posts and statements had been made by the Aam Aadmi Party in order to tarnish the reputation of Vinai Kumar Saxena, Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi.

The plaintiff -Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi had approached the Bench of Justice Amit Bansal seeking relief of permanent injunction and damages against the defendants on account of defamatory statements made on behalf of the defendants- Aam Aadmi Party and its office bearers on their social media platforms.

It was the plaintiff’s case that the Party and its members had launched a barrage of personal attacks against the plaintiff, making unsubstantiated and baseless allegations that the plaintiff had indulged in corruption and money laundering to the tune of Rs.1,400 crore at the time of demonetization while the plaintiff was the Chairman of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC).As per the plaintiff the defendants  The defendants had circulated defamatory hashtags and also conducted interviews in the news media towards defaming the plaintiff. 

The whole foundation of the libelous posts/tweets and slanderous statements of the defendants was based on extracts of the statements of two accused persons, being Mr. Sanjeev Malik and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, former employees of KVIC, the plaintiff further asserted.

Referring to the judgment of the Top Court in Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, the Bench said, “Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution afford the right of freedom of speech and expression to all persons. However, the same is subject to restrictions under Article 19(2), which includes defamation. Therefore, the right to freedom of speech and expression is not an unfettered right in the garb of which defamatory statements can be made to tarnish the reputation of a person.” 

According to the Bench, the statements made by the defendants that the plaintiff was involved in any acts of corruption at the time of demonetization, were completely unsubstantiated. On the allegations in respect of a contract of Rs 80 crore being assigned to the daughter of the plaintiff while the plaintiff was the Chairman of KVIC, the Bench held that such claims were imaginary as there was no material on record to substantiate the aforesaid statement. Further, KVIC in its letter had  clarified that no money was paid to the daughter of the plaintiff for the professional services rendered by her, the Bench noticed.

The defendants had also alleged that cash was distributed to the weavers in Bhagalpur, Bihar while the plaintiff was the Chairman of KVIC. On this aspect, the Bench clarified there was nothing in order of the Patna High Court that indicted the plaintiff in any manner. “Even if some irregularities occurred while the plaintiff was the Chairman of KVIC, the plaintiff cannot be made personally liable for the same. This cannot be the basis of a personal attack against the plaintiff”, the Bench said.

On a prima facie view, the Bench noted that the various statements/interviews/press conferences/tweets/re-tweets/hashtags made by the defendants were per se defamatory. 

“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. The defendants have not even bothered to respond to the legal notice dated 5th September, 2022 sent on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, the only remedy available for the plaintiff to protect his reputation and prevent erosion of the same would be to approach the court of law and seek injunctive relief,” the Bench held.

Noticing that grave and irreparable harm and injury would be caused to the reputation of the plaintiff if the aforesaid defamatory content continued to exist on the internet, the High Court restrained the defendants- Party and its office bearers from posting any defamatory or factually incorrect tweets, re-tweets, hashtags, videos of press conferences/interviews, comments, captions and taglines against the plaintiff and also directed the defendants to remove the defamatory posts.