"Fair Criticism Is To Criticise Act & Not Individual": Delhi HC Refuses To Stay Order Directing Mint Newspaper To Take Down Article Against Gaurav Taneja

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to stay a single judge order directing Mint Newspaper to take down an article published by it against Youtuber Gaurav Taneja, popularly known as 'Flying Beast' which made defamatory statements against him.

A division bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul, while dealing with an appeal by HT Media, which owns Mint, observed that just and fair criticism is to criticise the action and not the individual, while also expressing displeasure with the reference to Taneja's child in the said article.

"Say what you will about the man, criticise his actions, his speech but don't visit his children with these remarks."

The article in question titled "Shouldn't brands stop supporting sordid influencers?" was published after Taneja had posted a picture on Twitter wherein he was seen performing havan as per the Hindu rites. "Hinduism is a science based way of life. On 3 dec 1984, two families remained unaffected from Bhopal gas leak. They performed regular (हवन ), which is a natural antidote to pollution", Taneja had tweeted.

The tweet led to polarised debates in social media. A columnist named Abhishek Baxi quote tweeted Taneja's tweet by tagging certain brands asking them why were they associating with him. 

Later, the article in Mint written by columnist Shephali Bhatt was published, which raised allegations of misogyny, child abuse etc., against Taneja after referring to certain videos posted by him, one of which showed him piercing the ears of his daughter.

On July 27, the single judge had granted ad interim injunction in favour of Taneja observing that piercing the ears of a girl child cannot be termed as child abuse and that allegations of child abuse are serious allegations which cannot be made without due care and verification.

Today, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appearing for the appellant told the division bench that the article in question as a whole talked about how brands who engage with social media influencers react to criticism of such influencers. He argued that the issue was whether such brands wish to withdraw or continue with their products or services while reacting to their criticism.

Sibal submitted that the article was not centred to Taneja or his family but it focused on the brands, adding that none of the brands approached the Court aggrieved by the publication.

"Subject matter is a public figure who engages in public domain and in this case, beyond ordinary case, wherein entire commercial life of that person is by displaying personal life on internet and invite comment," Sibal argued, adding that the standard to pass injunction in such content is much higher.

Sibal argued that while Taneja might agree or disagree with the article, but he must show some malice on the part of the newspaper and that whether the single judge applied such a test was the question involved in the appeal.

Sibal also insisted that since the article in question is directed to be taken down by Friday this week, his appeal will stand infructuous if no relief is granted.

At the outset, Justice Mridul told Sibal to approach the single judge by way of filing an appropriate procedure in accordance with law rather than coming in appeal. He orally remarked thus:

"We are all for free speech. And occasionally all of us agree that free speech can be distasteful. It can even be obnoxious but the point is, in terms of procedure, you have to follow the procedure."

"Just criticism as we understand is that you criticise the act and action and not the person. You may not agree with our orders, you can criticise the orders but you can't criticise us. That is just and fair criticism that you don't accept something peddled by someone else but the fact is you don't target him, you target what you believe he couldn't have said."

The Bench also expressed unhappiness over the reference to the child and orally said that the same was offensive.

"…That we find very offensive. We are informed, we don't know, that a lot is being said about us (judges). It's not limited to us. We don't appreciate that. Say whatever about us, criticise our judgments…but don't visit the children. They haven't done anything. Don't visit the family and children," Justice Mridul said.

He added:

"Assuming, maybe it is pitching it too high, assuming we were to render a decision and instead of criticising the decision, you were to get into our family life. Would it be just and fair criticism? Possibly this analogy is a stretch but is it fair criticism? You don't like what we said, you're dissatisfied, you are aggrieved, say what you will. Criticise us by all means but don't talk to us about being child abusers. Is that right? And you're absolutely right, this is a debate which needs to be…. in today's environment which is necessary but you don't need to name individuals for that debate."

"If we permit this, there would be no end to what will be said about our families. When we say our families, we mean all of you."

The Court also told the appellant that while the concept of freedom of speech is clear, it expected the publication to follow self regulation, a principle as laid down by the constitution bench of Apex Court.

"….And the standard of self regulation has to be such that it pass muster," the Court added.

After some arguments, Sibal withdrew the appeal with a liberty to approach the single judge to initiate appropriate application in accordance with law but not limited to application under Rule 4 Order 39 of CPC seeking setting aside of the impugned order.

"Liberty granted. However as undertaken by the respondents who appear before us on advance notice, they are directed to appear before single judge at the time of first listing of proposed application instituted on behalf of the appellant and to argue the same without insisting upon filing a reply, provided they are served with advance copy of proposed application in time," the Court ordered.

The Single Judge had directed Mint to take down the article and restrained the author Shephali Bhatt and editor-chief Shruthijith KK from posting circulating or publishing the article. The Court har also directed Abhishek Baxi to take down the tweet against Taneja, taking exception to words like "bewakoof" and "idiocy" used by him.

Taneja's plea for injunction was rejected by a Delhi Court in June after which he had approached the High Court, claiming that the article had caused immense damage to his reputation with the sponsors. He had submitted that defamatory material was causing professional loss to him.

The matter before the single judge has been fixed for hearing on November 3.

'Vicious Character Attacks Not Journalistic Freedom' : Delhi High Court Directs Mint To Take Down Article Against Gaurav Taneja

Case Title: HT MEDIA LIMITED v. KAIRAVIVIEW (OPC) PVT. LTD. & ORS.