"Just because she is accused does not mean she deserves humiliation & disrespect without trial": Delhi Court stays all publications against woman
Principal District and Sessions Judge Deepak Jagotra stated that the plaintiff was an accused in a case, but that didn't mean she deserved humiliation and disrespect in society without facing the trial.
A Delhi Court passed exparte ad-interim injunction on publishing, re-publishing, and circulating any article in the print, electronic, social media, or through the internet against a woman accused in a criminal case.
Principal District and Sessions Judge Deepak Jagotra of the Karkardooma Court, Delhi held, “In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, exparte ad-interim injunction is hereby passed till the next date of hearing in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for not publishing, re-publishing and circulating any article in the print, electronic, social media or through the internet.”
The court was hearing an application filed by a woman, namely, Neelam Sharma seeking exparte ad-interim injunction in her favor and against the respondents. Neelam was accused of offences under Section 507 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of the IT Act, 2002 at Cyber Police Station of North district.
Neelam moved the court against the publication of an article in an English daily newspaper and claimed that it slandered, harmed, and tarnished her reputation.
The court noted that the matter was at its initial stage and opined that subjecting such matter to the public at large violated 'personal liberty' as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The court stated that "there are no two opinions on whether or not a person can be hanged, provided that he is facing a fair trial in a court of law. Hanging such a person before trial is not desirable and violates legal principles".
“No doubt, the plaintiff is an accused in case FIR No. 123/22 but it does not mean that she deserves humiliation and disrespect in society without facing the trial,” Court held.
“At times, media crosses its limit and may put forth the facts in a light different from its true version. There are absolutely no two opinions that Courts’ duty is to protect an individual and their reputation in the society before he or she is convicted by a court of law”, the court observed.
The court stated that the balance of convenience was also in the woman's favor, as she was a lady, and court must protect her dignity in society at large under any circumstances. Court also noted that there was no other equally effective remedy available to her except an injunction.
Moreover, the court was of the opinion that innumerable losses would be caused to the woman if the exparte injunction is not granted in her favor and the same would never be compensated in terms of money.
Accordingly, the court stayed all types of publications against the woman.
Case Title: Neelam Sharma v. Deputy Commissioner of Police & Ors.