Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, directed Twitter to delete the defamatory posts harming and injuring the reputation of the National Spokesperson for the Indian National Congress (INC) Shama Mohamed. The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan held, “I am also satisfied that grave and irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the plaintiff, if ad-interim injunctive order is not passed in her favour. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff”. 

A lawsuit sought a permanent and mandatory injunction to address alleged defamation by Sanju Verma. Records indicated that Shama Mohamed had served as a national spokesperson for the Indian National Congress (INC), possessed a professional background in dentistry, and held positions as Chairperson and Trustee of the Zoya Charitable Trust, an NGO. Sanju Verma was identified as a national spokesperson for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), while defendant no. 2, ‘TV-18,’ was recognized as a leading Indian media conglomerate.

Shama Mohamed claimed that Sanju Verma made defamatory statements about her on August 20, 2024, during a televised debate concerning an incident at RG Kar Hospital in West Bengal and the state’s response. TV-18 hosted this debate, which subsequently circulated on social media platforms managed by Twitter and Google.

Advocate Eesha Bakshi, representing Shama Mohamed, argued that Sanju Verma used derogatory terms, labeling her client as a "Madrassa Bred Bigot" and questioning her professional credentials as a doctor. Advocate Bakshi contended that these remarks were highly defamatory, portraying Shama Mohamed in an unfavorable manner.

Furthermore, Advocate Bakshi stated that the recording of the debate remained publicly available on TV-18's YouTube channel and had gained extensive traction on social media, fueling its viral spread. She alleged that Sanju Verma had consistently used derogatory language towards INC members and other opposition figures, noting that the BJP’s Maharashtra Unit had previously criticized Verma's language in a 2019 debate.

Additionally, Advocate Bakshi alleged that TV-18 frequently allowed defamatory and inflammatory statements on its platform, resulting in complaints to the National Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority, which subsequently sanctioned TV-18 for breaching broadcasting standards. 

In response to a legal notice dated September 16, 2024, Shama Mohamed stated that Sanju Verma had acknowledged using phrases like "Madrassa Bred Bigot" and "not a real doctor." Consequently, Shama Mohamed sought an ex parte interim injunction to remove the content from the social media accounts.

Upon review, the court noted that Sanju Verma had used expressions like "Bewakoof Aurat," "Shama Mohamed is as shameless as they come," and "you are a Madrassa Bred Bigot," which appeared defamatory and potentially damaging to Shama Mohamed's reputation. The court also reviewed related social media comments that included language disregarding acceptable standards of public discourse.

Underscoring the significance of reputation in preserving personal dignity, the court noted that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) was subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly in cases involving defamation. The court highlighted the need to protect public figures from baseless defamatory statements that could harm their carefully developed public image.

Referring to previous cases that balanced freedom of expression with reputation, the Court concluded that Shama Mohamed had presented sufficient grounds for interim relief, stating that denying the injunction could result in irreparable harm. 

For Petitioner: Advocates Muhammad Ali Khan, Omar Hoda, Eesha Bakshi, S. M. Khursheed, Uday Bhatia, and K. Sharma
Case Title: Dr Shama Mohamed v Smt Sanju Verma (2024:DHC:8354)