Delhi court rejects YouTuber Gaurav Taneja's (Flying Beast) defamation suit against Mint newspaper

A Delhi court on Monday rejected a suit by popular YouTuber and content creator Gaurav Taneja (Flying Beast) and his wife Ritu Rathee which sought permanent injunction against financial newspaper Mint to take down an allegedly defamatory article against them [Gaurav Taneja v Hindustan Times/Mint]. .Civil judge Anurag Chhabra rejected the suit noting that the plaintiffs, in the entire plaint, had not mentioned the portions of the said articles which are allegedly defamatory against themThe court said that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and that before passing any order for permanent injunction, it is necessary to adjudicate whether the articles are actually defamatory in nature or not.“The court is of the opinion that the plaint does not disclose cause of action as the plaintiffs have not sought the relief of declaration from the court and the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction sought by the plaintiffs are dependent upon the adjudication of the aspect whether the said articles are defamatory in nature or not,” read the court’s order..Taneja and Rathee had approached the court after an article was published in the Mint on May 8, 2022 by its senior assistant editor Shephali Bhatt.The article titled “Shouldn’t brands stop supporting sordid influencers?” was based on a picture and caption of a housewarming havan tweeted by Taneja. The picture had Taneja, Rathee and their younger daughter performing the pooja.The tweet read, “Hinduism is a science-based way of life” and that that on December 3, 1984 two families remained unaffected by the Bhopal Gas leak because they were performing havan.“They performed regular अग्निहोत्र (havan), which is a natural antidote to pollution,” the tweet claimed..In their suit, the couple alleged that Bhatt had posted the article in Mint and on her own Twitter and Linkedin accounts with clear intention of defaming them.It was stated that another tech journalist, Abhishek Baxi, downloaded the picture from his Twitter account and malafidely posted it on his own account with derogatory and disparaging words about the plaintiffs.The plaint added that Bhatt and Baxi even approached popular brands which were collaborating with the plaintiffs with the sole purpose to target them and dimmish their credibility..However, counsel appearing for Mint, Bhatt and Baxi pointed out that the plaintiffs have not sought for a declaration from the court that the articles were defamatory.It was argued that unless the plaintiffs prove that the alleged articles were defamatory in the first place, the Court cannot presume it to be so. Further, they claimed that the opinion expressed in the articles is based on truth..In his order, Judge Chhabra concurred with the arguments raised on behalf of the defendants as the plaint did not mention the portions of the article which are alleged defamatory in nature.“The plaintiffs have merely stated that the said articles are defamatory in nature qua the plaintiffs. It is not in dispute that fundamental right curtailed in Section 19 of the Constitution of India is not unrestricted. However, the plaintiffs shall prove before the court that the said articles are defamatory in nature and only then Article 19 (2) comes into picture. Moreover, it is difficult to segregate the private life of the public figures from their public life,” read the court’s order.The judge added that the suit has not even incorporated the pleadings as mandated by the judgment in Harvest Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. VBP Singapore Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. and, therefore, it is constrained to reject the plea..Advocates Vivek Kumar Gaurav and Shubham Prajapati appeared for the plaintiff. Advocates Naman Joshi and Guneet Sidhu, appeared for Mint and Shephali Bhatt. Baxi was represented by advocates Soutik Banerjee and Harsh Jain. .[Read Order]