New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Friday directed Malayalam news portal Marunadan Malayalee to remove all content published on its various online platforms against UAE-based Indian businessman and billionaire M.A. Yusuff Ali.
Founder of the LuLu Group International, a multinational conglomerate that operates a chain of hypermarkets and retail companies around the world, Ali had filed a defamation suit against Shajan Skariah, publisher of Marunadan Malayalee, seeking “removal of libellous content” from the portal’s platforms and damages of Rs 10 crore.
While allowing the businessman’s plea, the court ordered that the alleged defamatory material be taken down, noting that there is no “absolute freedom of speech”.
A single-judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh directed the accused to remove such content that had been published online within 24 hours of the order. The court also restrained the defendant (Skariah) from using any platform or social media to make comments in relation to Ali till the next date of hearing.
In case of failure to remove such content by the portal, Google and YouTube have been directed by the court to “take down all distasteful and defamatory content” published by the defendant and to suspend operations of its channels till the next date of hearing.
Also Read: Rahul Gandhi to MeToo, British-era criminal defamation law is only about power of the elite
‘Reasonable restriction on free speech’
Alleging that Skariah was running an “online defamatory campaign” against him, Ali had approached the Delhi High Court asking for an injunction restraining him from publishing any false, defamatory, or libellous material against him and the LuLu Group, which could result in violation of his right to privacy and life, and tarnish his goodwill around the world.
Justice Singh noted that publication of alleged defamatory material “prima facie seemed to be a misuse of liberties in the garb of freedom of speech”, and that Skariah was “unnecessarily targeting” both Ali and LuLu Group “by posting false and defamatory content”.
“Every person has the inalienable right to live a dignified life without discrimination and without being defamed,” said the court.
It noted that even though freedom of speech is critical to liberty in an effective democracy, it does not entail an absolute right to abuse one’s freedom and defame others.
“The law related to defamation is one such reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech as prescribed under the Constitution,” it observed.
Arguments from both sides
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Saurabh Kirpal, appearing with intellectual property rights (IPR) lawyer Pravin Anand, on behalf of Ali, told the court that the businessman was an internationally known figure and held in high regard for his extensive commercial, social, and philanthropic initiatives over the last five decades.
They argued that the accused was “posting ex-facie false and defamatory statements and comments” against Ali, and that they were “distasteful and have been done solely with the motive of maligning the reputation and fame” enjoyed by the businessman.
In response to the publication of the material by Skariah, Ali had even sent a legal notice in April this year demanding an apology, to which there was no response, said his lawyers.
They further pointed out that a defamation suit had also been filed in the past against the defendant in a Kerala court, which had passed a detailed injunction order in 2021 prohibiting the portal from publishing material against Ali.
Another complaint was also pending before the Lucknow Chief Judicial Magistrate, the lawyers told the high court.
It was Ali’s case that “despite specific and detailed injunction orders”, the accused “continues to post defamatory and false content” by making “incorrect, false, concocted and inflammatory allegations to incite public sentiment”.
Skariah’s lawyer contended that the suit was not maintainable before the high court.
Referring to a 2020 decision of the high court, Skariah argued that the court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter at hand. He also raised objection regarding “insufficient court fee” deposited for filing the case.
However, the court did not accept lack of jurisdiction or maintainability in the matter, and ordered that alleged defamatory content be taken down.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Why Rahul Gandhi faces jail for defamation: A history of laws that govern the offence