Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, directed ABN Andhra Jyothi, Mahaa News, and 4 others to remove videos and posts alleging that the leader of the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Venumbaka, Vijaya Sai Reddy, was having an extramarital affair with Mrs X and that she was granted exclusive access to restricted areas during the COVID-19 lockdown.

The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan held that “grave and irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the plaintiff, if ad interim injunctive orders are not passed in his favour”. 

A suit was filed seeking damages as well as a permanent injunction against Aamoda Publications and others, alleging that they made false, derogatory, scandalous, illegal, and defamatory statements against Reddy on various social media platforms.

Advocate Amit Agrawal, representing Reddy, contended that Defendant 1 ‘ABN Andhra Jyothi’; Defendant 2 ‘Mahaa News’; Defendant 3 ‘TV5 News’; Defendant 4 ‘BIG TV’; Defendant 5 ‘Aadhan – Aadhan Media Private Limited’; and defendant 6 ‘Wild Wolf TV’, disseminated false news against Reddy. 

Advocate Amit Agrawal submitted that ABN Andhra Jyothi broadcasted a recorded panel discussion involving one news anchor and four guests, where it was falsely discussed that Reddy was engaged in an extramarital affair with Mrs. X. The discussion also insinuated that Mrs. X was granted exclusive access to restricted areas during the COVID-19 lockdown and was involved in questionable land transactions, with false implications of significant sums of money being exchanged between Reddy, Mrs. X, and her husband.

Advocate Agrawal contended that the programs broadcasted were not live panel discussions or press conferences but were recorded programs in which the anchor was seen prompting or trying to elicit defamatory statements against Reddy from the panelists. He argued that these recorded programs were broadcast without editing, to tarnish and cause injury to Reddy’s reputation. He maintained that the statements were not only defamatory but also false and illegal, made to falsely suggest that Reddy was engaged in immoral and unethical conduct. 

Advocate Samarth Krishna Luthra, representing ABN Andhra Jyothi, argued that no allegation of defamation could be made against the news channel when it was broadcasting a live press conference. He emphasized the need to strike a balance between the right to privacy and the freedom of the press.

The court noted that the video was a recorded panel discussion among three individuals, wherein it was stated that Reddy had allegedly sent the husband of Mrs. X abroad while keeping Mrs. X in India. It was further mentioned that Mrs. X had become pregnant and given birth to a child, which fueled the current rumors. Additionally, it was asserted that Mrs. X, originally from the Rayalaseema Zone, was transferred to Vishakhapatnam, a move purportedly orchestrated by Reddy, who allegedly played a significant role in her selection and transfer to Vishakhapatnam.

The court, therefore, opined that the alleged videos and posts appeared to contain defamatory and libelous allegations and insinuations, made recklessly without regard for the truth, aimed at injuring Reddy's reputation. Furthermore, the court observed that most of these statements were based on rumors, and it is well-established in law that rumors, unlike the truth, should not be acted upon as information for dissemination to the public, especially when such rumors could potentially harm the dignity of a woman and the reputation of the person associated with her name. 

“Thus, prima facie it appears that the transcripts of the alleged videos do not disclose that the statements made by the anchors and panelists/guests are based on any evidence, much less credible evidence”, the court further added. 

The court highlighted Reddy’s position as a sitting member of the Rajya Sabha and noted that such recklessness not only brought his name into disrepute but also had the potential to adversely affect his political career and reputation, which he had carefully built over the years.

The court therefore held that Reddy had established a case warranting the grant of interim relief and that he would suffer grave and irreparable harm if the interim injunction was not granted in his favor. 

Accordingly, the court directed the defendants to remove, restrict access to, or block the URLs of the YouTube videos, Google posts, Facebook videos, and posts on ‘X’ that contained defamatory statements against Reddy within a period of 10 days. 

Case Title: Venumbaka Vijaya Sai Reddy v Aamoda Publications Pvt Ltd