The claim filed by Youtuber Gaurav Taneja, most commonly known as ‘Flying Beast’ and his wife Ritu Rathee against the allegedly defamation article published by the ‘Mint newspaper’ on May 8, 2022, was dismissed by a Delhi court.
The claim was dismissed by Tis Hazari Courts Civil Judge Anurag Chhabra, who noted that the plaintiffs had just said that the article was defamation against them in its nature without mentioning the portions of the article in the plaint that showed how the same was slanderous.
“It is undeniable that the fundamental right enumerated in Section 19 of the Indian Constitution is not unrestricted. However, the plaintiffs must prove to the court that the articles in question are libelous, and only then can Article 19 (2) be applied. Furthermore, it is difficult to separate public figures’ private lives from their public lives “the Court said
The article in question, headed “Shouldn’t brands stop backing filthy influencers?” was written after Taneja shared a photo on Twitter of himself conducting havan according to the Hindu ceremonies and traditions.
He had talked about the relevance of havan as a natural remedy to pollution in the paragraph previously mentioned
. As a result, the lawsuit claimed that the article was written in a negative and defamatory manner about Taneja and his wife, causing their image and reputation to suffer.
The plaintiffs sought a compulsory injunction against the defendants, ordering them to edit or delete defamatory articles from their profile or any other website where the allegedly defamatory material was published against them.
It also asked for an injunction prohibiting Defendants 2 and 3 from approaching brands that collaborate with the plaintiffs in relation to the suit’s dispute.
The Court stated at the outset that plaintiffs should have sought declaratory relief from the court in order to have the abovementioned articles declared defamatory in nature qua the plaintiffs.
“The court is of the opinion that the plaint does not disclose cause of action because the plaintiffs have not sought declaratory relief from the court, and the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction sought by the plaintiffs is contingent on the adjudication of the aspect whether the said articles are defamatory in nature or not,” the Court noted.
As a result, the lawsuit was dismissed. The application filed under CPC Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was also dismissed by the court.
