Remove defamatory contents against LuLu Group chairman: Delhi HC directs website

Every person has the inalienable right to live a dignified life without discrimination and without being defamed, said the Delhi high court on Friday as it directed a website and its publisher to take down defamatory content about Yusuffali Musaliam Veettil Abdul Kader, chairman and managing director, LuLu Group.

Hearing a defamation suit by Kader against one Shajan Skariah chairman/publisher of a website and online news channel www.marunadanmalayalee.com, justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that Skariah’s comments prima facie seem to be a misuse of the liberties where in the garb of freedom of speech and expression.

“….the defendant no 1 (Skariah) is unnecessarily targeting the plaintiff (Kader) and his business group and posting false and defamatory content about the latter. As per the statement by the learned senior counsels for the plaintiff, defendant no.1 by way of the contents/videos is also tarnishing the reputation of and defaming the highest officers and constitutional functionaries of the nation,” justice Singh noted its interim order.

Also Read: Relief for Uber, Rapido as Delhi HC stays AAP govt’s ban on bike taxis

The high court directed Skariah to take down forthwith all/any content published by it on any platform/social media platforms including that on YouTube in relation to Kader within the next 24 hours.

And if the defendant fails to do the needful, Google and YouTube will remove all distasteful and defamatory content and suspend the operation of the channels owned by defendant no.1 till the next date of hearing, said the high court.

The high court further restrained Skariah from using any platform/social media platforms, including that of defendant no. 2 i.e. YouTube for making any comments/remarks concerning the plaintiff, till the next date of hearing.

The high court said that even though the right to free speech and expression is a fundamental tenet of liberty which is considered to be an indispensable part of an effective democracy, the same does not give an absolute right to abuse one’s freedom to defame others.

“The law related to defamation is one such reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech as prescribed under the Constitution. Upon a bare perusal of the contents of the plaint and the content posted by defendant no.1 on record before this court, a prima facie case is made out against defendant no. 1. Accordingly, in view of the prima facie case being made out as well as in the interest of protection of rights of the plaintiff, this court believes that in the instant case, an ad-interim injunction merits to be granted,” the high court said.

The plaint filed by Kader contended that he is involved in many social, charitable and humanitarian activities in India and the Gulf countries. He is actively involved in protecting the interests of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) and fostering social and communal harmony amongst the NRIs in the Gulf.

Kader, through his counsel, contended that Skariah, who appears to be the principal officer, chairman/publisher of the website and online news channel www.marunadanmalayalee.com, was running an online defamatory campaign against the plaintiff (Kader) and is making ex-facie false and defamatory statements and comments.

Also Read: NIA moves Delhi HC seeking death penalty for Yasin Malik in terror funding case

The defamation suit, which had sought ₹10 crore in damages, has also sought to restrain Skariah from making, posting, publishing, uploading, distributing and/or re-publishing any false, defamatory and libellous content against the plaintiff or his business enterprise LuLu Group on any platform resulting in the violation of the plaintiff’s right to privacy, personality rights and right to life which can bring disrepute and tarnish the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation in India and across the globe.

“Defendant no. 1’s activities are distasteful and have been done solely with the motive of maligning the reputation and fame,” the plaintiff’s counsel told the high court.

It further submitted that despite high court orders and other legal proceedings, defendant no. 1 till date continues to post false and defamatory videos and content regarding the plaintiff with impunity leaving the plaintiff with no other option but to approach the high court seeking an urgent order of injunction.

Skariah’s counsel questioned the maintainability of the petition in the Delhi high court saying that the high court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.