The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to grant interim relief to Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) spokesperson Saurav Das in his suit alleging that his residential address and other personal information were disclosed and disseminated in the public domain by commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra and various media platforms, including LawBeat.

Justice Datta, who heard the matter, directed the defendants to file their replies and listed the case for further hearing on September 14.

Das has sued Iyer-Mitra, The Pamphlet, Jaipur Dialogues, The Sunday Guardian, Lawbeat and others, including X Corp and Google, alleging violations of his rights to privacy, dignity and security.

Importantly, the suit also names LawBeat through its YouTube account. Das has sought injunctive relief against the alleged publication of his private information and damages.

During Monday's hearing, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Das, pressed for protection against posts allegedly disclosing Das's residential address. He pointed the Court to posts identified in Schedule A of the plaint and submitted that the material specifically identified Das's address.

On Court's query, the bench was apprised that the links were no longer accessible, stating that they had been taken down by X under its policy. The Court consequently recorded that the links referred to in Schedule A were no longer accessible.

It is relevant to note that no posts of Lawbeat have been directed to be taken down by any media.

Sibal also advanced a broader privacy argument, submitting that the fact that Das is a public figure could not justify publication of information concerning where he lives, his personal finances or his parentage.

Referring to Press Council of India norms and judicial decisions, he argued that such information remains protected irrespective of whether the person concerned is a public figure.

Justice Datta observed that the issue was a “broad area” and questioned whether the different categories of information relied upon by Sibal could be treated alike.

“Are you referring to three things? They are in different compartments,” the Court observed.

Sibal maintained that the issues were separately recognised in judgments and Press Council norms. The Court said it would consider the submissions on the merits at the next hearing.

A counter-submission was made by the Counsel for Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, relying on the Supreme Court's judgments on privacy matters. Reference was made to the judgment of Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India , and it was submitted that information such as a residential address and date of birth does not, in every circumstance, carry a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Iyer's counsel, Percival Bilimoria also submitted that where a person apprehends violence, a separate legal remedy may be available.

Sibal sought to respond by referring to the Supreme Court's decision in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu and its discussion on privacy and publication. Justice Datta, however, deferred consideration of the submissions, saying the issues would be examined at the next hearing.

The Court also heard objections concerning the specific allegations against the seven defendants.

Counsel appearing for Defendant No. 4 pointed out that the plaint had incorrectly named Information TV Private Limited as the defendant. He submitted that the correct entity was Good Morning India Private Limited, which runs and publishes The Sunday Guardian.

Janay Jain, Advocate appeared for Lawbeat while Abhinav Chandrachud, Advocate, appeared for Pamphlet media. 

Justice Datta allowed the correction on oral prayer and directed that the amended memo of parties and amended plaint be filed within three days.

Sibal also submitted that the media personnel associated with one defendant (Pamphlet) had allegedly entered the property where Das resides without consent and recorded and published a video, while another defendant allegedly relied upon that video and further disseminated the material.

The Court also considered an objection concerning the verification of the plaint. Iyer's counsel pointed to paragraphs 35 to 44 of the plaint, which, according to him, were stated to be based on legal advice, and argued that the plaintiff could not rely on legal advice for verification of facts constituting the cause of action.

Justice Datta, however, observed that “cause of action” is a term of art, noting that the plaintiff was saying that the relevant averments were based on legal advice. The Court directed the defendant to raise the objection in the written reply.

Das was also permitted to place the relevant videos on a pen drive on record.

The Court ultimately directed that replies, if any, be filed within 10 days. The matter has been fixed for September 14.


Tags: