Read Time: 07 minutes
The Serum Institute argued that there was no material on record placed by the defendants to show that the Serum Institute had killed millions and that they were mass murderers.
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice RI Chagla recently restrained two men namely Yohan Tengra and Ambar Koiri from making, publishing, reproducing, circulating, speaking any defamatory or derogatory statements against Serum Institute of India (SII) and its CEO, Adar Poonawala.
The order was passed in a defamation suit filed by SII and Adar Poonawalla against Yohan Tengra, Ambar Koiri, and others.
The Bombay High Court was of the opinion that the statements made by the defendants were prima facie defamatory and there was no merit and justification in posting such defamatory contents against SII and Adar Poonawalla.
The court also directed Yohan Tengra and Ambar Koiri to forthwith delete and remove the defamatory videos and defamatory contents posted against SII and Adar Poonawalla on social media platforms and further restrained them from publishing any further defamatory content of like nature on social media platforms.
The Serum Institute of India and Adar Poonawala had approached the high court against the order of the trial court denying them interim relief.
Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy for Serum Institute argued that the statements like mass murderers were used against someone who had saved millions of lives. He also submitted that the defamatory content that was being made was based on a suit filed by one Dilip Lunawat, claiming that the vaccine was not without side effects, against the Serum Institute which was erroneous and misplaced.
Advocate Nilesh Ojha for the defendants submitted before the court the 5 petitions which were filed in the high court against the Serum Institute with respect to the effects of the vaccine.
He contended before the court that if the defendants and like are refrained from calling the plaintiffs mass murderers then it may affect the criminal case registered by them and the criminal case would become infructuous. He said that SII was indirectly trying to get relief in the criminal case.
During the course of the hearing, Adv Ojha cited different advisories issued by the European Countries against the use of AstraZeneca (the same formula was used by Covieshield).
Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy submitted that the contention that 21 European Countries had banned Astrazneca was misleading since the use was only suspended for a temporary period for certain age groups and not banned.
The SII further submitted before the court that the defendant relied on the Union of India’s Affidavit in Supreme Court but the same affidavit showed that the vaccine had saved millions of lives. It was submitted that out of 1530 million doses administered by SII, only 12 cases of TTS (Thrombosis With Thrombocytopenia Syndrome) were reported. Therefore, the potential benefits of the vaccine outweighed the effects of the vaccine, SII claimed.
Further, it was submitted by SII that it was not a matter of private dispute but such statements were against the national vaccination program and created hesitancy among people while affecting the public at large. Therefore, in such cases relief becomes mandatory, SII urged.
The present defamation suit filed by the Serum Institute of India and Adar Poonawalla sought a permanent and mandatory injunction against the individuals and their social media channels restraining them from making, posting publishing, reproducing, circulating, communicating, uploading defamatory and derogatory statements/posts/articles/ videos against the Serum Institute and Adar Poonawalla which are completely false, erroneous, derogatory and defamatory in nature.
Senior Counsel, Aspi Chinoy along with Senior Counsel Chetan Kapadia, Advocates Hitesh Jain, Monisha Mane Bhangale and Bijal Vora of Parinam Law Associates represented Serum Institute of India Private Limited and Adar Poonawalla in the above matter.
Please Login or Register
