Delhi HC To Hear Tomorrow Vikram Sampath's Defamation Suit Against Audrey Truschke & Others Over Plagiarism Allegations

The Delhi High Court will tomorrow hear the suit filed by historian Dr. Vikram Sampath against historian Audrey Truschke and other persons over a letter sent to Royal Historical Society raising allegations of plagiarism against him with respect to a journal publication and his two-volume biography of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and some alleged defamatory tweets made pursuant thereto.

Justice Amit Bansal will be hearing the suit tomorrow. The suit has been filed through Advocate Mukesh Sharma. Advocate Raghav Awasthi is likely to appear on behalf of Sampath tomorrow.

The suit states that Historian Audrey Truschke and other persons namely Ananya Chakravarti and Rohit Chopra wrote the letter dated February 11 to Royal Historical Society in London raising serious allegations of plagiarism.

It has been stated in the suit that a perusal of the letter will show that the crux of the allegation made against Sampath is that in an essay written for the Journal, he had plagiarized from an essay written by one Vinayak Chaturvedi.

"The said India Foundation is a very respected think tank focussed on the issues, challenges and opportunities of the Indian polity. It is submitted that the said allegation is quite absurd inasmuch as a perusal of the article in question would clearly establish beyond all reasonable doubt that Mr. Vinayak Chaturvedi has been cited," the suit reads.

Furthermore, the suit also refers to some alleged defamatory tweets made by Abhishek Baxi and Ashok Swain alleging that the same were posted with a mala fide intent to hit Sampath's professional reputation not only at the national level but also across the whole world.

"That it is further submitted that the defamatory letter in question is being quoted extensively on the platform of the Defendant No.4 by various unscrupulous elements and Twitter users. It is clear that the same is part of a motivated smear campaign against the Plaintiff and each and every time the defamatory material is being retweeted, a new cause of action arises," the suit adds.

"As ardent votaries of free speech, the Plaintiff has allowed for the last 5 months, since October 2021, several individuals to make malicious, defamatory statements against him and chosen to respond to that in the best interests of everyone's free speech. This libellous content over 5 months has already caused considerable damage to Plaintiffs reputation, works and career. There is a systematic pattern of maligning for vested and ideological reasons. Why this instance is the last straw on the camel's back is it prejudices the Plaintiff irrevocably especially in academic circles where plagiarism is viewed very seriously. This would close all doors forever in academic careers, possibly cancel his Fellowship at the Royal Historical Society and also force many publishers to withdraw his books and cancel future contracts."

Accordingly, the suit seeks decree of permanent injunction against the aforementioned defendants to cease the publication of Letter or any other defamatory material.

The suit also seeks damage of Rs. 2 crore from the said defendants.

The suit has been accompanied with an application seeking ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the said defendants from publishing the Letter or any other defamatory material on Twitter or any other online or offline platforms during the pendency of the suit. It also seeks an ad-interim ex-parte injunction directing Twitter to cease publication of the allegedly defamatory tweets in question. 

Title: DR. VIKRAM SAMPATH v. DR. AUDREY TRUSCHKE & ORS