New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of ‘defamatory’ posts over the alleged molestation of a journalist on a flight, saying that using social media to circulate the allegations and reveal the identity of the perpetrator before any formal investigation was a severe transgression of his fundamental right to live with dignity and fair trial.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, in an interim order passed on a lawsuit by the man, asked the woman journalist as well as certain online platforms not to publish the “defamatory allegations” against him till the next hearing in May. The court said the narrative set by the media houses and digital platforms breached the contours of the FIR registered in the matter as they did not merely report the allegations in the FIR but prematurely adjudicated it by labelling the plaintiff a “culprit” and “molester”.
The court also expressed concern over a tweet by actor Richa Chadha endorsing and amplifying the “unverified allegation”, observing that her conduct transcended mere free expression and acted as a “catalyst for public shaming and digital vigilantism”.
The court said, being a public figure, Chadha has a legal and moral responsibility to verify the veracity of facts before “leveraging her platform to amplify grave accusations” and asked her not to precipitate the issue in future. Her counsel said she has already removed the tweet.
The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that he was a highly reputed corporate professional with an unblemished career spanning over two decades, who had been subjected to a ‘trial by media’. The counsel said while travelling from Delhi to Mumbai on an IndiGo flight on March 11, the defendant woman abruptly woke up the plaintiff from his sleep and falsely accused him of inappropriate conduct.
It was claimed that upon landing, the woman launched a false, malicious, and defamatory attack on the plaintiff by publishing a post on X, which was subsequently amplified and sensationalised by other defendants without any independent verification. The plaintiff’s lawyer submitted that the allegations have a striking resemblance to the narrative in the woman’s earlier documentary project on harassment in public transport.
The woman’s counsel said the truth was the absolute defence in cases of defamation and opposed the passing of a gag order. The court observed that the “overhasty public disclosure” by the defendant woman prima facie suggested an attempt to sensationalise the issue and subject the plaintiff to a trial by public opinion, rather than a bona fide pursuit of legal redress.
It said that the woman broadcast the allegations on a social media platform before setting the criminal law in motion, as the post was published at 09:39 am while the FIR was registered at 12:27 pm, and the two were also “at variance” with respect to the plaintiff’s identity.
The court said posts following the incident harmed the reputation of the plaintiff, who was suspended from his workplace and that he would suffer irreparable loss and injury if relief was not granted at this stage.
“While defendant no. 1 (woman) has an unhindered right to report a grievance, but using social media to circulate allegations of inappropriate touching and revealing the identity of the plaintiff along with his photograph before a formal investigation even commences, in a prima facie view of this court, is a severe transgression of the plaintiff’s fundamental right to live with dignity and have fair trial,” the court said.
“This court is of prima facie view that the allegations in the post published by defendant no. 1 (woman) along with disclosure of plaintiff’s identity and his photograph; article published by defendant nos. 3; post/article published by ‘OBNews’ and ‘Pardafassh Media’ on the social media platforms of defendant nos. 5 and 6 respectively; and the tweet re-posted by defendant no. 7 (Chadha) sensationalize the issue at hand and have prematurely labelled the plaintiff as the culprit even when an FIR has been registered and the matter is under investigation,” the court concluded.
The court stated that when the investigation was underway, the defendants might be within their right to share or disseminate the contents of FIR or other material in public interest, but they have to exercise restraint and refrain from publishing and circulating any material referring to the character of the plaintiff which creates an atmosphere of prejudice for him or mar his reputation and thereby causes prejudice to an ongoing investigation.
“Under the circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to direct the defendant no. 1; defendant nos. 3 and 4 (media houses); online platform operating under the name ‘OBNews’ on the platform of defendant no. 5; and an Instagram page named ‘Pardafaash Media’ operating on the platform of defendant no. 6, not to publish any post making identical or similar defamatory allegations against the plaintiff, till the next date of hearing. Ordered accordingly,” the court directed.
“Further, the following defendants are directed to forthwith take down/remove the defamatory posts published on the social media platforms, namely X (defendant no. 2), Google LLC (defendant no. 5) and Meta Platforms LLC (defendant no. 6)”, it added.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
