A Delhi district court has granted interim relief to journalist and author Swati Chaturvedi in her defamation suit against entities operating the website OpIndia, directing the portal to remove two allegedly defamatory articles during the pendency of the trial.
District Judge Meenu Kaushik of Patiala House Courts passed the order while hearing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim injunction against the publication and circulation of the disputed content.
The suit was filed by Swati Chaturvedi against M/s Aadhyaasi Media and Content Services Pvt. Ltd., associated with the website OpIndia.
Background of the Case
Chaturvedi alleged that two articles published by the defendants on June 2, 2018 and May 8, 2019 contained defamatory remarks aimed at damaging her reputation as a journalist.
According to the plaint, the articles described her as “delusional”, accused her of plagiarism, fabrication, and even linked her to “extortion rackets.” The plaintiff argued that these allegations tarnished her standing among peers and readers.
Chaturvedi also claimed that despite issuance of a legal notice, the articles remained accessible online and no apology was issued by the defendants.
The defendants, however, opposed the injunction plea by asserting that the articles were based on material already available in the public domain and constituted fair comment protected under the constitutional guarantee of free speech.
What Happened During the Hearing
Counsel for the defendants argued that the disputed publications merely reflected political commentary and journalistic opinion. They contended that identifying Chaturvedi with “The Wire,” described as a left-leaning platform, could not amount to defamation.
The defence also relied on several judgments, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., to argue that courts must exercise caution before granting pre-publication or interim injunctions in media-related defamation disputes.
On the other hand, the plaintiff maintained that the defendants had failed to substantiate several serious allegations made in the impugned articles. It was argued that the publications went beyond fair criticism and amounted to targeted reputational harm.
Court’s Key Observation
The court observed that the source materials relied upon by the defendants did not prima facie support several allegations published against the plaintiff, particularly the accusation that she was involved in “extortion rackets.”
Judge Meenu Kaushik noted that since Chaturvedi is a journalist and public commentator, her credibility and professional reputation are crucial to her career. The court held that continued accessibility of the articles could cause repeated and irreparable harm.
The court further stated that temporarily removing the articles would not prejudice the defendants because they would still have the opportunity to justify their publications during trial.
Court’s Decision
Allowing the interim injunction application, the Patiala House Court directed the defendants to remove or block the two impugned articles from the website www.opindia.com until further orders.
The court also restrained the defendants from publishing any further defamatory material against the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.
At the same time, the court clarified that the observations in the order are only prima facie and should not influence the final adjudication of the case.
Case Details
Case Title: Swati Chaturvedi v. M/s Aadhyaasi Media and Content Services Pvt. Ltd.
