Delhi Court Orders OpIndia To Remove Allegedly Defamatory Articles Against Journalist Swati Chaturvedi

The order was passed by District Judge Meenu Kaushik of Patiala House Court in a defamation suit filed by Chaturvedi against OpIndia and its representatives over two articles published in 2018 and 2019.

The journalist argued that the articles falsely portrayed her as being associated with a “leftist propaganda website” and made several damaging allegations, including branding her “delusional,” accusing her of plagiarism and linking her to “extortion rackets.” According to the plea, the publications severely harmed her professional reputation and credibility as a journalist and public commentator.

The defendants opposed the application, arguing that the articles were protected under the constitutional guarantee of free speech and were based on material already available in the public domain. They contended that the reports amounted to fair comment and journalistic opinion, not defamation.

OpIndia further argued that describing Chaturvedi as being associated with 'The Wire' could not be defamatory, especially when she herself had written for the platform.

However, after examining the material placed on record, the Court observed that several statements made in the impugned articles did not appear to be directly supported by the source material relied upon by the defendants.

The Court noted that allegations such as Chaturvedi “running extortion rackets” were not borne out from the documents cited by the defendants in their written statement. While acknowledging the importance of free speech and cautioning against routine injunctions in defamation cases involving the media, the Court held that the balance of convenience presently lay in favour of the plaintiff.

The Court observed that continued circulation of the articles during trial could cause “serious and irreparable injury” to Chaturvedi’s reputation, particularly because she is a public-facing journalist whose credibility forms the foundation of her profession.

Referring to judgments including Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. and the landmark English decision in Bonnard v. Perryman, the Court reiterated that interim injunctions in defamation matters must be granted with caution. At the same time, it clarified that such relief could still be issued to prevent continuing harm where a prima facie case was made out.

The Court ultimately directed the defendants to remove or block the two impugned articles from the OpIndia website till further orders and restrained them from publishing any defamatory content against Chaturvedi during the pendency of the suit. The judge clarified that the observations in the order were only prima facie in nature and would not influence the final adjudication of the case after trial.

"Defendants are directed to block/remove the impugned articles dated 02.06.2018 and 08.05.2019 from their website namely www.opindia.com during the pendency of the suit/till further orders. Defendants are further directed to not to publish any defamatory article qua the plaintiff on their website during the pendency of the suit. In view of above directions, present application stands disposed of. The observations made hereinabove are prima facie and shall not constitute any expression of final opinion on merits of this case," the Court held.