TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocutory injunction . This Court does not find any reason to take a different view. On an assessment, on the cardinal principles for grant of interim relief, i.e., existence of a prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury, no case for grant of interim injunction to restrain the defendant No. 1 from tweeting/publishing his views or to take down or archive the existing tweets, is made-out. Application dismissed. - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON For the Appellant : Manish Vashisht, Sr. Adv., Abhinav Sharma and Dhruv Rohatgi, Advs. For the Respondent : Pawan Narang, Neerajm, Satya Ranjan Swain, Kautilya Birat, Pratyashish Mohanty, Saransh Jain, Shloka Narayanan and Shaurya Rai, Advocates ORDER I.A. 10839/2021 (by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 (2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants) I.A. 12535/2021 (by defendant No. 1 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement along with the affidavit) 1. The suit has been filed for mandatory and permanent injunction as also for damages for defamation. 2. This order w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the Defendant No. 1 on their platforms against the Plaintiff in respect of purchase of low floor buses from Tata Motors Ltd. and JBL Auto Ltd, which have been mentioned in Schedule-1 and Schedule-11 with the present Plaint, till the final adjudication of the present suit, 6. Grant an ex-parte, ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants by directing the Defendant No. 2 and 3 to temporarily take down all or any defamatory or scandalous or factually incorrect Tweets/Posts made by the Defendant No. 1 on their platforms against the Plaintiff in respect of purchase of low floor buses from Tata Motors Ltd. and JBL Auto Ltd, which have been mentioned in Schedule-1 and Schedule-11 with the present Plaint, till the final adjudication of the present suit, 7. Any other relief(s) as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court may be granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. 3. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 are members of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi. While the plaintiff is the Minister of Transport, Revenue, Law Justice Legislative Affairs, Administrative Reforms and Information and Technology for the Government of N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08, till the year 2018, the Delhi Transport Corporation ('DTC') was not getting any financially viable bids. There were only three manufacturers in India who could manufacture CNG propelled low floor AC buses, namely, (i) M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., (ii) M/s. Ashok Leyland and, (iii) M/s. JBM Auto Ltd. 7. In the past, on account of the requirement for Comprehensive Annual Maintenance Contract ('CAMC') alongwith the supply of the DTC buses, viable bids were not forthcoming. In this background, the council of Ministers, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, vide Cabinet decision No. 2713 dated 11th July, 2019, decided to call for synchronized separate bids for buses and CAMC. The tender for CAMC for the buses floated by the DTC in the year 2020 was almost the same, as was for the year 2008. The tender in that year for supply of buses had resulted in the induction of 3125 buses into the fleet of the DTC. Since emission standards have been now upgraded to EURO 6 (Bharat Stage VI) w.e.f. 1st April, 2020, Delhi was the only one place where such buses with strict specifications were required. There was also need for annual maintenance and supply of genuine parts for the entire life-cycle o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaintiff had been caught. The same is reproduced below: 14. Learned senior counsel has submitted that on account of all these kinds of allegations, which though were false, frivolous and incorrect, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi constituted an independent Committee of three members to look into these complaints. The DTC filed a comprehensive representation before the Committee explaining the entire process. The defendant No. 1 without waiting for the conclusion of this inquiry by the Three Member Committee, again made bald and baseless imputations against the plaintiff on 20th June, 2021, alleging that the plaintiff was in conspiracy with the vehicle manufacturers and that there was a scam in the procurement of the buses. This tweet is reproduced herein-below: 15. Making allegations once again of financial irregularities, the defendant No. 1 made the following tweets on 26th June, 2021. The defendant No. 1 further raised objections to the appointment of the Committee by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor and malafidely chose a social media platform to express his discontent in the following tweet dated 27th June, 2021. On 1st July, 2021, the following tweet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi of a good fleet of buses. The defendant No. 1 was acting against public interest by issuing such tweets. Even the contents of the report submitted by the Three Member Committee had been incorrectly referred to in the tweets by the defendant No. 1. The Committee had not scrapped the CAMC but had only recommended/advised the scrapping of the CAMC. Yet even while doing so, the Committee found no scam or corruption. Certain procedural shortcomings were noted but those did not smack of corruption. 20. The learned counsel submitted that even in the written statement, several incorrect statements have been made and therefore, the plaintiff would succeed in his claim against the defendant No. 1 and he should be protected till the disposal of the suit by an injunction, directing the taking down of all these offending tweets. It was further submitted that the written statement cannot be looked into since the verification is not proper. Moreover, the admission and denial of documents are also not in order. Therefore, the suit should be decreed against defendant No. 1 under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC. 21. Mr. Pawan Narang, learned counsel for defendant No. 1, has crystallized his argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t page 59 of his documents. Nowhere has the plaintiff explained why the Government had taken such a decision, despite the claim of a favourable Committee Report, which had been released on 10th/11th July, 2021. There was nothing in the plaint to connect the voluntary placing of the orders in abeyance to the tweets of the defendant No. 1 and therefore, it was only rhetorical to claim that the defendant No. 1 had denied a sound transport system to the citizens of Delhi. The tweet was actually only stating a truth. 24. It was submitted that the defendant No. 1 was only discharging his public duties by drawing attention to irregularities in the procurement process of buses and it was an apparent political strategy to shift the blame on the opposition, as if they were blocking the procurement process, whereas, the truth was that the plaintiff and the Government were themselves not interested in creating a good transport system in Delhi. By reproducing all these orders and other details, including press report in the tweets by the defendant No. 1, he had acted in public interest and not against it as alleged by the plaintiff. 25. Learned counsel submitted that while accusations had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a preliminary inquiry, that this defamation suit has been filed. Thus, all statements made in the tweets were justified. 28. It was further submitted that the tweets came on the heels of the earlier problematic procurement process of the DTC, which was why the procurement in the previous years were called off. Being a vigilant public figure, the defendant No. 1 was only keeping a tab on what was happening with the DTC procurement process this time and found it opaque, as initially even the Minutes were not uploaded and thereafter despite queries, a logical explanation for a flat rate weighted value was not given. 29. By merely stating suspicions, there could be no defamation caused. Learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 further submitted that on the basis of all the documents placed on record, both by the plaintiff as well as the defendant No. 1, he would be able to justify every tweet that he had made. According to the learned counsel, there was enough material which raised suspicion on the conduct of the meetings, the decisions taken in those meetings, the resolutions passed and the ultimate grant of the tender to M/s. Tata Motors and M/s. JBM Auto Ltd. 30. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take down the tweets. He also relied on Anand Prasad Agarwalla vs. Tarkeshwar Prasad Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 149 35. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on several judgments. With respect to Non-Compliance of Order VI Rule 15 Order XIX, CPC 1908, reliance has been placed on State of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik, 1952 SCR 674; Amar Singh vs Union of India ors. 2011 (7) SCC 69; and LT Food Ltd. vs Sachdeva Sons Rice Mills Ltd Ors. 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3773. With respect to law on defamation, decisions in the following cases were cited : Mehmood Nayyar Azam vs. State of Chhattisgarh ors. (2012) 8 SCC 1; Umesh Kumar vs State of Andhra Pradesh Anr. 2013 (10) SCC 591; Subramanian Swamy vs UOI Ors. 2016 (7) SCC 221; New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Anr. Vs B.D. Singhal Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 466; Pandey Surendra Nath Sinha anr vs Bageshwari Pd 1960 SCC OnLine Pat 116; Hari Shankar vs Kailash Narayan Ors. 1981 SCC OnLine MP 30; V. Subair vs. Dr. P.K. Sudhakaran 1987 SCC OnLine Ker 192; M. N. Meera vs A. C. Mathew 2002 SCC OnLine Ker 470; B. M. Thimmaiah vs. Smt. T.M. Rukimini Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 8721; Housing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n statement contains only falsehood. Further, it was submitted that the defect in the verification was fatal and the amendment could not be allowed. It was also submitted that the written statement was directed to be filed within a week from the date of the order of the Division Bench of this Court i.e., 6th September, 2021 and since the written statement was filed only on 12th September, 2021, it could not be taken on record and there could be no question of amendment. 39. Though parties are entitled to raise objections based on procedure, it cannot be overlooked that procedure is meant to advance substantive justice and is rarely used to unsuit any person, unless the timeline was strictly provided for by the statute. This is an ordinary civil suit. The Division Bench of this Court had granted a week's time to file the written statement w.e.f. 6th September, 2021 i.e. by 13th September, 2021. The written statement was filed on 12th September, 2021. The reply to the I.A. 10839/2021 was filed on 13th September, 2021. Thus, evidently, the defendant No. 1 has complied with the orders of the Division Bench of this Court. The reason why the learned senior counsel submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st, 2021, although they are listed in the Annexure 1 (Schedule-I). The tweets in respect of which there is a reference both in the pleadings as well as the prayers in the interim relief are the tweets that are dated 13th March, 2021, 14th March, 2021, 15th March, 2021, 15th June, 2021, 17th June, 2021 (3), 20th June, 2021, 26th June, 2021, 27th June, 2021, 1st July, 2021, 4th July, 2021, 10th July, 2021, 11th July, 2021, 27th July, 2021 and 19th August, 2021. The mere reference to tweets in the body of the plaint or the application will not suffice, as urged by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, inasmuch as the plaintiff is required to distil his reliefs from all the facts that he pleads. It is a prayer clause that will temper the relief that can be granted. What has not been sought obviously, cannot be granted. However, reference is made to the Twitter and Facebook links in Schedule I and II and these Schedules are included only in the prayer clause (5). The learned counsel for defendant No. 1 is right that mere listing of links will not suffice to establish defamation, but the reliefs claimed are considered on the averments in the pleadings. 43. The prayers (3) (4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency [Article 19(2)] an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being publicised in press/media. (3) There is yet another exception to the rule in (1) above--indeed, this is not an exception but an independent rule. In the case of public officials, it is obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter, the remedy of action for damages is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. This is so even where the publication is based upon facts and statements which are not true, unless the official establishes that the publication was made (by the defendant) with reckless disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be enough for the defendant (member of the press or media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; it is not necessary for him to prove that what he has written is true. Of course, where the publication is proved to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintiff. What has not come into existence cannot be presumed to be defamatory. The court would not have any material before it to take even a prima facie view that what would be published would in fact result in loss of reputation. 48. Thus, the prayers (3), (4) and (5), cannot be granted. The defendant No. 1 cannot be restrained from publishing or tweeting any matter in relation to the procurement of the 1000 buses and the CAMC, as it cannot be held that whatever the defendant No. 1 may tweet or post in future would necessarily be defamatory. 49. It cannot be overlooked that both, the plaintiff as well as the defendant No. 1, are public figures and members of the Legislative Assembly. There is a right vested in the Opposition to question the government on its actions, as the Executive is subject to the Legislature under the Constitution. This is key to the maintenance of the balance of power between the two wings of the State. The defendant No. 1 had in fact raised starred questions in the Assembly, but did not find the answers sufficiently elucidating of the actions taken by the Government. To now prevent the defendant No. 1 from commenting on, specifically, the purchase of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Division Bench:- 65. ..........The task, though difficult it may be, for persons holding public office, cannot be summed up but to say that such persons have to show greater tolerance for comments and criticisms. One cannot but once again rely on the observations of Cockburn C.J. in Seymour v. Butterworth cited with approval in Kartar Singh's case (supra) to the effect that the persons holding public offices must not be thin skinned in reference to the comments made on them and even where they know that the observations are undeserved and unjust they must bear with them and submit to be misunderstood for a time. At times public figures have to ignore vulgar criticism and abuses hurled against them and they must restrain themselves from giving importance to the same by prosecuting the person responsible for the same. (emphasis added) 53. The nature of these tweets may be discussed at this juncture, as to whether they only raise a concern about the intended purchase of 1000 low-floor buses from Tata Motors and the grant of an AMC which included a weighted value of Rs. 45.50 or appear intended solely to tarnish the image of the plaintiff. While it was contended b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also copied the newspaper report. (iv) The tweet of 17th June, 2021 refers to the decision of the government dated 11th June, 2021, keeping the purchase and the maintenance order in abeyance. That order has been filed by the defendant No. 1, though it has also been reproduced as part of the tweet at page 49 of the plaint. (v) The second tweet on the same day (at page 50), again copying a newspaper report, appears to be a comment on the plaintiff that he has developed cold-feet after having issued a work order as corrupt practices have been caught out. (vi) In the tweet of 20th June, 2021, a press-release has been annexed and shared in the tweet, referring to irregularities in the purchase of the 1000 buses and complicity of the Transport Minister i.e., the plaintiff. (vii) In the tweet of 26th June, 2021, again, the defendant No. 1 has referred to the process of purchase under the Chairmanship of Delhi Government's Transport Minister being marred by financial irregularities. A press-note has also been annexed. (viii) On 27th June, 2021, the tweet refers to another newspaper report commenting that the Committee appointed by the Lieutenant Governor by including a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also found irregularities and had recommended its cancellation. The tweets are also contemporaneous to the convening of the Delhi Assembly and also to the appointment of a Committee by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor to make inquiry into the alleged corrupt practices, based on a complaint received by him. Thus, it is difficult to accept that these tweets were personally targeted against the plaintiff alone and were per se defamatory and were totally false on the face of it. Had these accusations been absolutely false, the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor would not have constituted a Committee. Moreover, the CBI has also initiated a preliminary inquiry. The Delhi Government, through the plaintiff, has kept the purchase and maintenance orders on hold, stating no reason. Hence, it is reasonable to infer that the Committee report and the CBI inquiry may have had some effect on this decision of the Government. It would, no doubt be upon the defendant No. 1 to actually prove justification during trial. But on the material placed on the record, there is nothing on which basis the tweets can be treated as blatant lies and hence defamatory. 57. The case of Laksmi Murdeshwar Puri (sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not true. 59. In Tata Sons Limited Vs. Greenpeace International Anr 2011 SCC OnLine Del 466, a Coordinate Bench of this Court concluded that wider viewership or a degree of permanence characteristic of publication on the internet would not change the essential fact that it too is but a medium of expression and called for no different standards for grant of interlocutory injunction . This Court does not find any reason to take a different view. 60. Finally, it cannot also be overlooked that the plaintiff has sought damages of Rs. 5 crores from the defendant No. 1 for causing loss of reputation to him. In other words, compensation in monetary terms has been quantified by the plaintiff himself and the absence of an interim injunction would not cause injury that could not be compensated by grant of damages, in the event, the defendant No. 1 fails to justify his tweets. 61. Thus, on an assessment, on the cardinal principles for grant of interim relief, i.e., existence of a prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury, no case for grant of interim injunction to restrain the defendant No. 1 from tweeting/publishing his views or to take down or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
