Delhi Court Rejects Advocate's Defamation Suit Against Media Over Coverage Of 2016 Patiala House Violence Involving Kanhaiya Kumar

A Delhi Court today rejected a defamation suit filed by advocate Vikram Singh Chauhan against Google, several media houses and journalists over their coverage of the 2016 Patiala House Court violence linked to the JNU controversy involving Kanhaiya Kumar.Senior Civil Judge Shruti Chaudhary of Patiala House Courts held that the plaint was ex facie barred by limitation.The Court allowed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by several defendants, namely Arnab Goswami, M/S Bennet Coleman, Barkha Dutt and NDTV.The judge observed that Chauhan failed to show either by averments in his plaint or by documents relied upon by him that a fresh wrongful act of publication or otherwise was committed by any or all of the defendants, which can be covered within the limitation period.“Therefore, it appears that the plaint only discloses continuing consequences of the alleged publication that had admittedly taken place several years prior to the institution of the present suit and fails to disclose any legally sustainable fresh cause of action within the period prescribed under the law of limitation,” the Court said. Chauhan alleged that following the incidents at Patiala House Courts on February 15 and 17, 2016, media organisations falsely portrayed him as a “gunda lawyer”, “hooligan” and “goon”, thereby damaging his professional reputation. He claimed that the alleged defamatory content caused him to lose a client and adversely affected his election to the post of Honorary Secretary of the New Delhi Bar Association in 2022. He sought directions for removal of the content, an unconditional apology and Re. 1 as damages.The defendants, however, sought rejection of the plaint primarily on the ground that the Limitation Act prescribes a one-year limitation period for suits seeking compensation for defamation, which had expired in 2017. They also contended that the plaint did not disclose a valid cause of action and lacked particulars of the alleged defamatory statements. Rejecting the suit, the Court observed that Chauhan did not aver that the defendants republished the material or recirculated the same, which may be covered within the limitation period for filing a suit seeking damages for defamation i.e. one year from the date of publication.It noted that Chauhan made a general averment that one of his clients refused to engage him as an advocate in the month of August, 2022 upon acquiring knowledge of the defamatory material available against the plaintiff on social media. It also noted that Chauhan made another vague averment that he lost an election of NDBA, Patiala House Court for the post of Honorary Secretary in the year 2022 only on account of the imputations and defamatory statements or contents published by the defendants. “He has not given any particulars regarding the identity of the said prospective client or the date or circumstances in which the alleged refusal took place or the manner in which the alleged publications came into the knowledge of said prospective client. Similarly, no material particulars have been pleaded by the plaintiff to establish the relation between the contents published by the defendants and his alleged electoral defeat,” the Court said. It concluded that mere availability or discoverability of material on the internet does not, by itself, amount to a republication or recirculation so as to give rise to a fresh cause of action each time the said material is accessed. “The defendants have raised several other grounds in their separate applications u/O 7 Rule 11 CPC, however, since this court finds that, on the averments contained in the plaint itself, the suit is barred by the statutory ground of limitation and is liable to be rejected u/O 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, any examination or adjudication of the remaining objections raised in the said applications, is rendered unnecessary as it would merely be an academic exercise,” the Court held. “Accordingly, the plaint stands rejected u/O 7 Rule 11(d) CPC being barred by law and all the four applications u/O 7 Rule 11 CPC are allowed and disposed off,” it ordered. Case: VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. GOOGLE INDIA AND ORSAdvocate Aryamn Yadav appeared for plaintiff Chauhan. Advocate Himanshu Sethi appeared for defendants no. 3 (Sameer Jain), 4 (Vineet Jain), 7 (Shrijeet Ramakant Mishra) & 8 (Bennet Coleman); Advocates Gaurav Dudeja, Raghvendra Pratap Singh & Abhijeet Debnath appeared for Arnab Goswami; Advocate Kaustubh Srivastava appeared for Barkha Dutt and Advocate R. H. A. Sikander appeared for NDTV, Prannoy Roy and Radhika RoyClick here to read order

Delhi Court Rejects Advocate's Defamation Suit Against Media Over Coverage Of 2016 Patiala House Violence Involving Kanhaiya Kumar

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Delhi Court Rejects Advocate's Defamation Suit Against Media Over Coverage Of 2016 Patiala House Violence Involving Kanhaiya Kumar

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers