"Can't Curtail Discussion In Academic World": Delhi High Court To Vikram Sampath In His Suit Against Audrey Truschke

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to grant any urgent relief to historian Dr. Vikram Sampath, who is aggrieved over circulation of a google document, purportedly signed by various academicians who came in support of historian Audrey Truschke over allegations of plagiarism regarding Sampath's work on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

Sampath claimed that the document was posted Truschke on social media platforms including Twitter, thereby violating court's interim order.

"You can't curtail discussion on the subject in the academic world. Your cause of action is qua those who are defaming you. For that you have orders. You can't get injunction against thousands of people," Justice Amit Bansal told Sampath's counsel orally today.

The Court was dealing with an application moved in the suit filed by Sampath against Audrey Truschke and other persons over a letter sent by them 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.

Earlier, the Court had restrained Truschke and other persons from publishing defamatory material against Sampath till April 1.

During the course of hearing today, Sampath's counsel apprised the Court that while it was claimed that the document was signed by various academicians, however, he informed that many such academicians later said that the document in question was not signed by them.

At the outset, the Court orally remarked thus:

"It could be maybe 50 had written the letter. They have right to write this letter. These orders are wrt to defendant(s). If some academicians are of the view...you can't stop the world."

"There is nothing defamatory about the letter.. If she is posting it, there is nothing defamatory in that also. I have heard you enough. There is nothing. I am not inclined. You will keep filing applications here every week. Every one is free to have their views on the subject."

Sampath's counsel argued that the circulation of the said document was affecting him and his reputation of being an academician and a historian. On this, the Court said:

"You already have two orders in your favour. You enforce them. If she has posted the letter, then in my opinion there is nothing defamatory in that."

The Court however issued notice on the application. The matter will now be heard in due course.

Advocates Raghav Awasthi and Mukesh Sharma appeared for Sampath.

The suit stated 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.

The Court had last month directed micro blogging site Twitter to take down some of the tweets made by Truschke against Sampath over allegations of plagiarism against him.

The Court had also restrained the defendants from publishing the letter dated February 11 addressed to Royal Historical Society in London raising serious allegations of plagiarism against Sampath, till the next date of hearing.

The Court had issued summons in the suit and posted the matter for further hearing on April 1.

The suit sought decree of permanent injunction against the aforementioned defendants to cease the publication of Letter or any other defamatory material.

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

The suit was also 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 sought an ad-interim ex-parte injunction directing Twitter to cease publication of the allegedly defamatory tweets in question. 

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