The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice on an application filed by Managing Editor of Aaj Tak Anjana Om Kashyap and TV Today Network, which owns the news channel, against educator Faisal Khan, popularly known as Khan Sir, along with several other social media users and content creators over their alleged defamatory remarks made against the journalist and the media network, in connection with a controversy surrounding “star teachers” and the NEET examination debate.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna refused to grant any interim injunction at this stage and sought response from the defendants on the application. The High Court recorded the appearance of counsel for certain defendants and directed that notice be issued to the remaining respondents through all permissible modes.
The interim application was moved in a Rs 2 crore defamation suit instituted by Kashyap and TV Today Network seeking removal of allegedly defamatory content published on various social media platforms and digital channels.
The dispute stemmed from a live debate concerning the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) examination system. During the broadcast, Kashyap had allegedly criticised certain online educators and content creators, describing them as individuals primarily focused on attracting views and questioning their credibility.
Following the broadcast, Khan Sir allegedly made a series of remarks targeting Kashyap and her reporting, using expressions such as “bikau patrakar” (sold-out journalist), “chatukar” (sycophant), “dalali” (brokerage or commission), and “fake news ki dukaan”.
The senior counsel appearing for Kashyap and TV Today Network submitted before the Court that several defendants were continuously publishing abusive, toxic and derogatory content on social media platforms, which was subsequently amplified, circulated and disseminated by other users, causing serious harm to the reputation, goodwill and professional standing of both the journalist and the media network.
The counsel appearing for some of the defendants referred to posts allegedly made by the plaintiffs and argued that if any content was directed to be removed, similar standards would have to be applied to the plaintiffs’ own statements. It was contended that the dispute involved competing claims and that the Court should not selectively examine only one side’s content.
The Court orally observed during the proceedings that the case essentially concerned allegations regarding derogatory material posted on social media and noted that settled legal principles require objectionable and defamatory content to be removed if it is found to be prima facie derogatory. The Court further remarked that while individuals were entitled to express their views, content found prima facie defamatory may be liable to be taken down.
Counsel for certain defendants argued that the statements attributed to them did not constitute defamation and maintained that some of the plaintiffs’ own posts were equally objectionable. It was submitted that any assessment of alleged defamation would require examination of the complete context and competing narratives. The Court observed that such contentions could be raised in the defendants’ written replies and affidavits.
Questions were also raised regarding the extent of protection available under Article 19 of the Constitution and whether a blanket injunction could be granted against multiple defendants without specific allegations being individually established against each of them. It was argued on behalf of the defendants that freedom of speech and expression must be balanced against claims of reputational harm and that the plaintiffs could not seek a sweeping restraint order covering all content and all defendants.
One of the defendants, who operates a Facebook account, submitted that even reposting or sharing content had been challenged by the plaintiffs and argued that an overarching injunction against all forms of dissemination would be impermissible.
The counsel appearing for another media entity, 4PM News Network, contended that the impugned videos were reactions to the plaintiffs’ comments regarding online educators. It was argued that the suit sought to challenge 18 different pieces of content uploaded by eight different defendants across multiple platforms, each giving rise to separate causes of action. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs had improperly combined all such grievances into a single suit, thereby raising questions regarding maintainability.
The counsel appearing for the plaintiffs argued that the language used by the defendants went beyond criticism and amounted to targeted harassment. The plaintiffs contended that the content contained abusive and threatening language, including references to family members, and was capable of inciting violence. It was submitted that the continued availability of such content on digital platforms was causing ongoing harm and therefore warranted immediate removal.
The plaintiffs urged the Court to direct the defendants to take down the impugned content pending adjudication of the suit. The Court, however, observed that it would first need to hear all parties before considering any such relief and directed the defendants to file their responses to the interim applications.
Some of the defendants opposed any urgent interim order and argued that no exceptional circumstances warranted immediate intervention. They further contended that the plaintiffs could not seek a blanket restraint order without establishing specific grounds against each defendant.
The Court ultimately issued notice on the interim application and listed the matter for further consideration on June 17.
The underlying defamation suit sought the removal of various statements allegedly made against Kashyap, as well as the impugned content from social media platforms. Kashyap and TV Today Network further claimed damages of Rs 2 crore for alleged injury to their professional credibility.
The post NEET Star Teacher controversy: Delhi High Court issues notice on Anjana Om Kashyap plea against Khan Sir over derogatory remarks appeared first on India Legal.