Patiala House Court Grants Interim Injunction in Defamation Suit Against OpIndia
A Delhi court has directed OpIndia to remove two allegedly defamatory articles about journalist Swati Chaturvedi during the pendency of a civil defamation suit. The court also restrained the defendants from publishing further defamatory content against the journalist until further orders.
The order was passed on May 13, 2025, by the Patiala House Court in the case titled Swati Chaturvedi v. M/s Aadhyaasi Media and Content Services Pvt. Ltd., CS No. 892/19.
Plaintiff Alleges Defamatory Publications
The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an interim injunction against the defendants. She argued that the defendants published false and defamatory articles claiming that she worked with “leftist propaganda website” The Wire. According to her, these claims damaged her reputation among readers and professional peers.
She also stated that the defendants failed to remove the articles or issue an unconditional apology even after receiving a legal notice dated 03.06.2019. The plaintiff sought directions to remove the articles published on 02.06.2018 and 08.05.2019 and to stop further defamatory publications.
Defendants Cite Free Speech and Fair Comment
The defendants argued that the articles relied on material already available in the public domain. They claimed that truthful reporting cannot amount to defamation. The defendants further contended that calling The Wire “leftist” reflected political opinion and did not constitute defamation.
Regarding the second article, the defendants said it was fair comment based on articles written by the plaintiff herself. They also argued that the reporting followed accepted journalistic standards and that they exercised due care before publication.
The defendants additionally argued that the plaintiff failed to prove actual damage to her reputation.
Court Finds Source Material Insufficient
The court examined the two disputed articles and noted that they included allegations of plagiarism, fabrication, lies, and extortion rackets against the plaintiff.
After reviewing the source material relied upon by the defendants, the court observed that the material did not prima facie support several allegations made in the publications. The court specifically noted that the source articles did not show that the plaintiff ran extortion rackets, as alleged by the defendants.
The court held that the defendants’ claim that the articles were based on true facts would be examined during trial.
Reliance on Supreme Court and High Court Judgments
The defendants relied on several judgments, including Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., where the Supreme Court stressed caution while granting injunctions in defamation matters involving media entities.
They also cited:
- T.V. Today Network Limited v. News Laundry Media Pvt. Ltd.
- R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
The plaintiff relied on Gaurav Bhatia v. Naveen Kumar YouTube Channel, where the Delhi High Court allowed removal of defamatory content to prevent continuing harm.
The court also referred to Bonnard v. Perryman, which discusses the balance between protecting reputation and preserving free speech.
Court Says Balance of Convenience Favours Plaintiff
The court observed that the plaintiff’s professional reputation and credibility as a journalist were important. It held that continued circulation of the articles could cause serious and irreparable harm that monetary damages alone may not remedy.
The court further stated that temporary removal of the articles during the trial would not prejudice the defendants, as they would still have an opportunity to justify their claims during proceedings.
Court Directs Removal of Articles
The court directed the defendants to remove or block the impugned articles from the OpIndia website during the pendency of the suit or until further orders. It also restrained the defendants from publishing further defamatory content concerning the plaintiff during the proceedings.
The court clarified that its observations were only prima facie and should not be treated as a final opinion on the merits of the case.
