A Patiala House Court granted interim relief to journalist Swati Chaturvedi by directing OpIndia to remove two allegedly defamatory articles and restraining further defamatory publications during pendency of the defamation suit before District Judge Meenu Kaushik.
A Delhi court, in the form of interim relief for journalist Swati Chaturvedi, has ordered news portal OpIndia to take down two articles that were allegedly defamatory and has restrained it from publishing any further defamatory material while the defamation suit is pending. The directive was issued by District Judge Meenu Kaushik at the Patiala House Court.
The order was passed in a defamation case filed by Chaturvedi against OpIndia and its representatives, concerning two articles published in 2018 and 2019.
Chaturvedi argued that the articles falsely linked her to a “leftist propaganda website” and levelled multiple harmful allegations. She claimed they portrayed her as “delusional,” accused her of plagiarism, and connected her to “extortion rackets.” According to her plea, the publications damaged her professional standing and credibility as a journalist and public commentator.
The defendants opposed the application. They contended that the disputed content is safeguarded by the constitutional protection of free speech and that it was based on information already available in the public domain. They further argued that the pieces amounted to fair comment and journalistic opinion rather than defamation.
OpIndia also submitted that describing Chaturvedi as associated with “The Wire” could not amount to defamation, given that she herself had written for the platform. However, after reviewing the record, the court observed that some statements in the impugned articles did not seem to be directly supported by the source material cited by the defendants. The court noted that allegations such as Chaturvedi “running extortion rackets” were not reflected in the documents relied upon by the defendants in their written statement.
While recognizing the significance of free speech and cautioning against routine injunctions in defamation cases involving the media, the court held that the balance of convenience currently favoured the plaintiff.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Stops Fake Websites from Infringing Tata Power Solar’s Trademark
The court observed that allowing the articles to remain in circulation during the trial could cause “serious and irreparable injury” to Chaturvedi’s reputation, particularly because she is a public-facing journalist and her credibility is central to her profession. The judge referred to authorities including Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. and the English decision in Bonnard v. Perryman, emphasizing that interim injunctions in defamation cases should be granted carefully. At the same time, it clarified that interim relief may still be issued to prevent ongoing harm where a prima facie case is made out.
Ultimately, the court directed the defendants to remove or block the two impugned articles from the OpIndia website until further orders and restrained them from publishing any further defamatory content against Chaturvedi throughout the pendency of the suit. It also clarified that the findings in the order were only prima facie and would not affect the final outcome after trial.
The Court held,
“Defendants are directed to block/remove the impugned articles dated 02.06.2018 and 08.05.2019 from their website namely “www.opindia.com” during the pendency of the suit/till further orders. Defendants are further directed to not to publish any defamatory article qua the plaintiff on their website during the pendency of the suit. In view of above directions, present application stands disposed of. The observations made hereinabove are prima facie and shall not constitute any expression of final opinion on merits of this case,”
Case Title: Swati Chaturvedi v. M/s Aadhyaasi Media and Sunil Gupta Pvt. Ltd.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE