Read Time: 04 minutes

A Delhi Court in a recent order has refused to injunct former ScoopWhoop employee Samdish Bhatia from speaking about his alleged experience of facing sexual harassment at ScoopWhoop media.

Bhatia has filed a sexual harassment complaint against the company's CEO and co-founder Sattvik Mishra and his wife.

Though the matter is currently sub-judice before the Complaints Committee constituted under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace (POSH) Act, Bhatia spoke about his experience on social media.

WhoopScoop whose spin off is ScoopWhoop, approached the Court to injunct Bhatia from speaking about the alleged incident because it damages the reputation of the company and hampers the enquiry.  

Per contra, Bhatia has argued that the posts do not specifically name anyone and the company has not taken any hit on followers or reputation because of such posts.

He further submitted that the complaint was transferred from ScoopWhoop to WhoopScoop without intimation.

The Court took on record the above submissions and observed that to injunct someone there has to be a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.

In view of the same, the Court observed that the plaintiff company cannot be affected by such posts because the company is not a party to the complaint under POSH.

The Court further stated that there has to be legal right/injury, which is absent in the present case. 

Further, the Court stated, 

"Expression of a victim's trauma or experience is his/ her fundamental right which can only be curtained if it is falls under four broad categories i.e. "libel, slander, defamation", "contempt of court", "offends against decency or morality" and "undermining the security or tending to overthrow the State"."

In the present case, the alleged posts do not fall in any of the above-said category, the Court observed, and refused to grant the injunction. 

Cause Title: WhoopScoop Media Ltd. vs Samdish Bhatia