Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted an interim injunction and instructed various channels of YouTube and X to remove any defamatory material from their channels until the pendency of Advocate Gaurav Bhatia's defamation case. The court held that the balance of convenience favored Bhatia, as restricting the circulation of defamatory content would not infringe on freedom of speech rights while allowing its continued dissemination could cause irreparable harm.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna emphasized, “In the Suits of Defamation against media platforms or Journalists, additional consideration of balance in the Fundamental Right to Free Speech with the Right to Reputation and Privacy, must be borne in mind. The constitutional mandate of protecting journalistic expression cannot be understated and the Courts must tread cautiously while granting interim injunctions”.

Previously, the court issued notices to various parties, including YouTube channels such as Article 19 India (managed by journalist Naveen Kumar), The News Launcher, BBI News, and comedian Rajeev Nigam. Additionally, several Twitter accounts, including those of Sandeep Singh, Vijay Yadav, NETAFLIX, Sunita Jadhav, a parody account of actor Pankaj Tripathi, Dawood Nadaf, Drkhatra, and Virus Baba INDIA Wala.

Represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, Gaurav Bhatia, as the plaintiff, emphasized his esteemed position as a Senior Advocate, conferred by the Supreme Court of India in 2019, indicating significant expertise and experience in the legal field. Furthermore, Bhatia had previously served as the Honorary Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association, illustrating dedication to the legal profession and active participation in its highest echelons.

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi further highlighted that Bhatia is actively involved in politics, holding the role of National Spokesperson in the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), recognized as the world's largest political party. As a spokesperson, Bhatia is crucial in communicating the party's viewpoints and policies to the public, he asserted.

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi highlighted the substantial viewership and engagement of defamatory videos on various social media platforms, posing a significant threat to Bhatia's reputation, livelihood, and overall well-being. The widespread dissemination of such content on platforms like YouTube exacerbates these concerns, he said.

The incident concerning the suit occurred during a lawyers' strike where Bhatia, in judicial attire, attended a Court session in Gautambudh Nagar. Despite agreeing to adjourn the matter upon learning of the strike, Bhatia was physically assaulted by a local lawyer, leading to the confiscation of his Advocate’s Band. This incident received extensive coverage on social media platforms and news channels, resulting in the proliferation of defamatory content.

The court acknowledged that Bhatia, holding a distinguished position as a Senior Advocate and serving as a spokesperson for a prominent political entity, faced higher thresholds of criticism as a public figure. Individual dignity and honor cannot be sacrificed under the guise of free speech and expression, court said.

The bench noted that Bhaita, acting professionally, was subjected to assault and had his Advocate’s band seized while in court, an act condemned by the Apex Court. While the press had a duty to report the incident accurately, spreading deepfake videos and false claims harmed Bhatia’s reputation and posed a persistent threat, the court emphasized. 

“As has been discussed in the aforementioned judgments, while the threshold of public criticism and alleged defamatory X posts/Tweets on social media platforms is much higher, but the individual dignity and honour of a person cannot be allowed to be defamed or disrepute brought to him on the ground of Right of Free Speech and Expression. A thin line of distinction exists between defamation and public criticism and an onerous task lies with the Courts to maintain this delicate balance between the competing claims and rights”, the court noted. 

Accordingly, the court allowed interim relief. 

Advocates for Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, Advocates Utkarsh Jaiswal, Vikas Tiwari, Raghav Awasthi and Mukesh Sharma.
Advocates for Defendant: Hemraj Singh, Mehood Pracha, Sanawar, Jatin Bhatt, Ruman Ali, Askim Naeem, Muzakkir Zama, Aditya Gupta, Aishwarya Kan and Sauhard Alung.

Case Title: Gaurav Bhatia v Naveen Kumar & Ors.