Delhi High Court Imposes a Cost on Former Rajya Sabha Member, Sasikala Pushpa in Defamation Matter

Must Read

Madras HC Reaffirms Trial Court’s Decree in Case of Thimmaraya & Ors. V. Gowrammal

A Civil Revision Petition was filed by three petitioners against the dismissal of their application on the file of...

Delhi High Court Disposes Ashok Arora’s Appeal Against Suspension From Supreme Court Bar Association

In the present Petition, Senior Advocate Ashok Arora challenged an Order passed by a Single Judge bench. The Order...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application To Quash Prima Facie Allegations of Criminal Intimidation and Outraging Modesty

Allahabad High Court, on 17th November 2020, dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and refused to...

Delhi High Court Prohibits Gathering in Public Places To Celebrate Chhat Puja

The Order had come in a Writ Petition moved by Shri Durga Jan Seva Trust. The Petition sought to...

Bombay High Court Directs State To Pass Tribe Claim Within Two Weeks, Refuses To Intervene on Merits of Claim Itself

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar passed an order...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition by Allocating Respondent To Vacancy in IFS Cadre

On 16th November 2020, the Division Bench at Kerala High Court, consisting of Honourable Justice A.M. Shaffique and Honourable...

Follow us

On June 2, 2020, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Suit filed by Sasikala Pushpa. This was filed for the removal of her photos with a male political rival from social media.

Facts of the Case

In September 2019, Sasikala Pushpa filed a suit against the Union of India, Facebook Inc., Google LLC, and YouTube LLC. She also filed it against various unknown persons, preventing them from broadcasting any defamatory material against her. This also included alleged objectionable photographs or any fabricated material.

Saiskala Pushpa, the Plaintiff, was a member of Rajya Sabha. She was from All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). She received threats about the distribution of photographs and videos on social media to defame her. Later, an certain unknown person uploaded the photographs, as mentioned earlier, on social media.

The Court issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against social media platforms. It was restraining them from publishing or showing any defamatory material related to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, Sasikala Pushpa sought an injunction order against Google, YouTube, and Facebook. It was for not verifying the authenticity of the photographs before publishing them.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Though the photographs do not qualify as obscene, the presence of a political rival qualifies to be defamatory. It also affects the membership of the Plaintiff. The plaintiff’s submission included the photographs not being genuine. Further, publishing them on social media platforms is violative of the plaintiff’s privacy. The Plaintiff also contends that the photographs are being morphed, forged, and also fabricated.

Respondent’s Arguments

Facebook Inc. stated that they are an intermediary; they are not obliged to scan the information uploaded. They further included in their statement that they had no role in sharing or modifying any information from a third party.

Google LLC and YouTube filed a written statement together. They submitted that the injunctions are vague and contrary to defamation law. They also submitted that they are neither the host nor the publisher of any information obtained by a third party.

Court’s Decision

The Court observed the photographs and materials on record. It said, that the photographs were not obscene or scandalising in any manner. Further, the Court said, “…the photographs of the plaintiff, I repeat, a politician, with a man other than the husband, can by any stretch of imagination considered by any person of average intellect and moral standard, to be lowering the esteem in which the plaintiff held or as tarnishing the image of the plaintiff.”

The Court considered that matter of violation of Plaintiff’s privacy and stated,

“….. the electorate has a right to know of the behind curtains meetings of the plaintiff with a man other than her husband and particularly a man belonging to a political party which the plaintiff before the public criticizes or opposes in the elections”

Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw in his statement denied any relief to the Plaintiff. The Court directed her to pay Rs. Two Lakh each, to Facebook, and Google and YouTube LLC together.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

Latest News

Madras HC Reaffirms Trial Court’s Decree in Case of Thimmaraya & Ors. V. Gowrammal

A Civil Revision Petition was filed by three petitioners against the dismissal of their application on the file of the Sub-Judge, Hosur. The case...

Delhi High Court Disposes Ashok Arora’s Appeal Against Suspension From Supreme Court Bar Association

In the present Petition, Senior Advocate Ashok Arora challenged an Order passed by a Single Judge bench. The Order held that Mr Arora had...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application To Quash Prima Facie Allegations of Criminal Intimidation and Outraging Modesty

Allahabad High Court, on 17th November 2020, dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and refused to quash the charge sheet (dated...

Delhi High Court Prohibits Gathering in Public Places To Celebrate Chhat Puja

The Order had come in a Writ Petition moved by Shri Durga Jan Seva Trust. The Petition sought to quash and set aside an...

Bombay High Court Directs State To Pass Tribe Claim Within Two Weeks, Refuses To Intervene on Merits of Claim Itself

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar passed an order on 17th November 2020 in...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition by Allocating Respondent To Vacancy in IFS Cadre

On 16th November 2020, the Division Bench at Kerala High Court, consisting of Honourable Justice A.M. Shaffique and Honourable Justice Gopinath. P heard the...

AP High Court: If an Auction Is Conducted by a Cooperative Bank, the Property Ceases to be Property of the State

A single-judge bench consisting of honourable justice Ninala Jayasurya gave orders on the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petition challenges the action...

Madras HC Rules in Favour of the Authorities in FMGE Examination, Finds Writ Petitions Against the Exam Void of Merit

Three aspirants of Foreign Medical Examinations moved to the High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. They...

Hong Kong High Court Rules for Independent Mechanisms To Be Set up To Deal With Complaints Against Police Officers

The present suit was brought by a journalist association because of the police brutality that the protestors faced in the protests against the China...

Madras High Court Maintains That Government Policy Is To Prioritize Own State’s Candidates and Sets Aside Nativity Certificate Rejection Order

Varsha Totagi, a NEET aspirant filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. She had been denied Nativity Certificate without which...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -