“We are concerned about your position. You are not acting as an intermediary should. You need to be a neutral platform. We are seeing more frequently, both in original and appellate courts, that Domain Name Registrars and intermediaries are not complying with court orders. This is a trend not just nationally, but internationally. Even orders from Canadian courts have been ignored,”
remarked Acting Chief Justice Manmohan.
NEW DELHI: Today (3rd July): The Delhi High Court rebuked social media platform X Corp (Twitter) for challenging a court order that required the removal of posts by Congress leaders alleging that journalist Rajat Sharma used foul language against Congress leader Ragini Nayak on live television.
READ ALSO: India TV Journalist Rajat Sharma Files PIL Against Deepfake Videos: Delhi HC
A Division Bench, including Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, emphasized that X Corp should act as a neutral intermediary, but its current behavior does not reflect neutrality.
“We are concerned about your position. You are not acting as an intermediary should. You need to be a neutral platform. We are seeing more frequently, both in original and appellate courts, that Domain Name Registrars and intermediaries are not complying with court orders. This is a trend not just nationally, but internationally. Even orders from Canadian courts have been ignored,”
remarked Acting Chief Justice Manmohan.
The court expressed concern about X Corp’s resistance to complying with the order, especially when someone’s reputation is at stake. Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, representing X Corp, argued that while X has no vested interest, the process of issuing the order was questionable.
He noted that the single-judge ordered X to remove the content within seven days, even though the defendants (Congress leaders) were not identifiable.
READ ALSO: Delhi HC Orders Removal of Posts Alleging Rajat Sharma Abused Congress Leader on TV
Rao argued that the single-judge ordered X to remove the content within seven days, but in this case, the defendants (Congress leaders) were not identifiable.
“The crux of the matter is that the responsibility [to remove the content] lies with the individual. If it’s an ex parte order, I will certainly comply. However, I urge that it should be handled in a systematic manner,”
he stated.
The senior counsel emphasized that Rajat Sharma’s lawsuit had not been served to any of the defendants, with the plaintiff suggesting that serving it would render the issue moot.
“The Supreme Court recently emphasized that ex parte injunctions should be granted only under exceptional circumstances… There must be respect for due process,”
he added.
He referenced a recent Supreme Court ruling that ex parte injunctions should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and called for maintaining the sanctity of the legal process.
The court accepted Rao’s request, clarifying that the impugned order is ad interim and that the interim relief application will be heard on July 11.
Previously, on June 14, a single-judge of the High Court issued an ex parte order directing the removal of posts and videos by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh, and Pawan Khera, which claimed that Sharma used foul language against Nayak on live television.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated that the incident was over-sensationalized and the facts were falsely depicted, causing potential irreparable harm to Sharma if the content remained online.
The Court granted the request, stating,
“The order in question is temporary (ad interim), and the application for interim relief will be heard and decided by the single-judge on the next scheduled hearing date of July 11th.”
Sharma sued Nayak, Khera, and Ramesh for defamation, seeking Rs 100 crore in damages. The controversy began when several social media accounts posted a video of a discussion on India TV, claiming Sharma used foul language against Nayak.
Nayak posted the video on X and filed a police complaint against Sharma on June 10, followed by Sharma’s accusation that the Congress party’s media cell falsely claimed he used foul language in a conspiracy against him.
