[Vikram Sampath v. Audrey Truschke] "You can't curtail discussion in academic world:" Delhi High Court to Sampath

The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that a document circulated by historian Audrey Truschke against historian Vikram Sampath does not prima facie contain any defamatory content..Single-judge Justice Amit Bansal also said that Court cannot stop discussions in academic world and that Sampath cannot file applications every week to injunct Truschke. "I don't find anything defamatory in this letter, if she (Truschke) is posting it there is nothing wrong in that..........You can't curtail the subject of discussion in academic world. if the academicians feel or have a view that you have plagiarised something, then you can't seek injunction against thousand people," the Court remarked..The Court, however, issued notice in the matter.The Court was hearing an application filed by Sampath alleging that Truschke circulated a document claiming to have signatures of many personalities supporting her in relation to her allegations of plagiarism against Sampath. Sampath had moved the Court stating that many of those whose signatures were on that document had come forward to state that they have never signed such a document."There are people who have said that they did not sign this letter. This includes Ramchandra Guha. Then there is Pratap Bhanu Mehta who also said he never signed it," Sampath's counsel said.The Court however, maintained that there seemed to be nothing defamatory in the letter. "There is nothing defamatory in this letter in my view, if she is posting it, nothing defamatory in that also. Everyone is free to have their views on the subject; every week you will move Court?" the judge asked"If the name is wrongly mentioned (in the document)... let's see there are 100 names, and few say they have not signed it. It does not mean there is any defamatory content," the Court further remarked..You can't curtail the subject of discussion in academic world.Delhi High Court .Later advocate Raghav Awasthi, the lead counsel for Sampath, joined the proceedings and claimed that the content itself is defamatory. "It's not about academicians. Defamatory content is being posted," he said.The Court then issued notice and sought response from Truschke. The application by Sampath was filed in a suit earlier moved by him seeking ₹2 crores in damages from Truschke and two other historians who accused Sampath of plagiarism in relation to his works on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Sampath in his suit also sought permanent injunction on publication of a letter dated February 11 written by historians Truschke, Ananya Chakravarti and Rohit Chopra to Emma Griffin, President of Royal Historical Society (RHS) in Britain.The High Court had on February 18 restrained Truschke and the others from posting any defamatory content against Sampath. Later on February 24, the High Court had ordered social media platform Twitter to take down five tweets put out by Truschke against Sampath.