Defamation — Interim injunction — Digital media — Right to be forgotten — Articles 19(1)(a) & 21 — Balancing of rights
Plaintiff arrested and reported in media — Subsequently discharged and criminal proceedings dismissed — Impugned articles continued to remain available, indexed and circulated online — Trial court granted interim injunction directing restraint against continued circulation/de-indexing — Held, continued digital availability after exoneration causes disproportionate and irreparable harm to dignity and reputation — Right to freedom of speech not absolute and must yield to right to dignity under Article 21 in appropriate cases — Interim order justified.
[Paras 13–16]
Defamation — Limitation — Article 75, Limitation Act — Right to be forgotten — Distinct cause of action
Suit contained distinct prayers founded on (i) defamation and (ii) right to privacy, dignity and right to be forgotten — Reliefs premised on right to be forgotten not governed strictly by limitation applicable to libel — Plaintiff approached court shortly after culmination of criminal proceedings in his favour — Suit not liable to be rejected at threshold on ground of limitation.
[Paras 11–12.1]
Defamation — Interim relief — Archival content — Continued publication
Reporting of arrest and investigation may serve public interest at relevant time — Perpetual digital availability of such reports after factual foundation ceases to exist raises serious concerns of enduring stigma — Mere addition of brief update or clarification insufficient to neutralise dominant defamatory narrative.
[Paras 14–15]
Constitution of India — Arts. 19(1)(a) & 21 — Freedom of press vis-à-vis dignity and reputation
Freedom of press stands correspondingly delimited by right to dignity and reputation — In cases of disproportionate harm caused by continued dissemination, Article 19(1)(a) must yield to Article 21 — Principle of constitutional proportionality governs grant of interim relief.
[Paras 13, 16]
Civil Procedure — Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC — Appellate interference
Interference with discretionary interim order warranted only if arbitrary, capricious or perverse — Trial court exercised discretion judiciously after balancing competing constitutional rights — No infirmity warranting appellate interference.
[Paras 16–17]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of Proceedings
The appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC challenged an order granting interim injunction in a civil suit seeking damages, restraint, de-indexing and de-referencing of news articles published by digital media platforms concerning the plaintiff’s arrest and alleged criminal involvement.
[Paras 1–5]
2. Factual Background
The plaintiff, a professional banker, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in August 2023 and several media platforms reported the arrest. Subsequently, the plaintiff was discharged on 17-08-2024 and the entire criminal complaint stood dismissed. Despite such exoneration, the impugned articles continued to be hosted, indexed and circulated online.
[Paras 3–3.1, 10]
3. Trial Court’s Interim Order
The trial court found that continued availability of the impugned articles after discharge would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and dignity, that a prima facie case existed, and that balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, leading to grant of interim relief.
[Paras 4–5]
4. Limitation Objection
The appellant contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 75 of the Limitation Act. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that the plaint disclosed distinct reliefs based on the right to privacy and right to be forgotten, which arose after culmination of criminal proceedings in favour of the plaintiff.
[Paras 11–12.1]
5. Right to be Forgotten — Constitutional Basis
Relying on K.S. Puttaswamy, Dejo Kappan, Jorawer Singh Mundy and allied precedents, the Court held that once criminal proceedings end in exoneration, continued digital dissemination of content associating an individual with criminal allegations ceases to serve legitimate public interest and infringes the right to live with dignity under Article 21.
[Paras 13–14]
6. Archival Content and Updates
The Court held that mere tagging of articles as “archival” or adding brief updates does not erase the dominant narrative or the continuing reputational harm caused by the original publication.
[Para 15]
7. Balance of Convenience — Constitutional Proportionality
The balancing exercise must account for constitutional proportionality. Any inconvenience to the media platform was held to be limited and reversible, whereas prejudice to the plaintiff’s dignity and professional life was immediate and irreparable.
[Para 16]
8. Scope of Appellate Review
The High Court held that the trial court’s discretion was exercised judiciously and in accordance with settled principles. As the order was neither arbitrary nor perverse, no interference was warranted under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.
[Paras 16–17]
9. Final Holding
The appeal was dismissed; interim injunction upheld; pending applications closed.
[Paras 17–18]
No comments:
Post a Comment