Allahabad HC Temporarily Restrains Ex-IPS Officer, His Wife From Making 'Defamatory' Posts Against UP CM Advisor

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order on a plea filed by Awasthi challenging an order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lucknow, refusing to pass an ex-parte ad interim order of temporary injunction in his favour.

It may be noted that Awasthi has filed two suits against Thakur and his wife (seeking relief of perpetual and mandatory injunction) after the duo made a series of statements on social media platforms and digital news platforms stating that a huge sum of cash (Ra. 50 Crores) was stolen from Awasthi's bungalow in the State of Uttarakhand.

Though the posts were later deleted, and they posted a public apology, it is Awasthi's case that both of them have been making further statements that are derogatory to his reputation and defamatory.

Before the Civil Judge's court, Awasthi had moved an application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendants from speaking, printing, publishing, etc selling and/or exhibiting, circulating, streaming and sharing any information, video, contents, etc., in spoken words or in writing, in any newspaper or any public platform or any social media platform, etc., in public domain which may tantamount to his defamation, while the matter is sub-judice before the trial court.

However, since the prayer in this application was not allowed, challenging the said order, Awasthi moved the HC.

Before the single judge, it was argued by the counsels appearing for Awasthi (led by Senior Advocate Jaideep Narain Mathur) that it was necessary that the civil court should have passed an order of ad interim temporary injunction pending disposal of the application for temporary injunction.

It was also apprised to the Court that after the trial court passed an order dated 30.09.2024 issuing notice to the opposite party-defendant, the latter posted some more messages/ statements which are defamatory against the petitioner which justify the grant of an ad interim order of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, noting that the alleged posts published by the opposite party prima facie appear to be defamatory and prejudicial to the petitioner's reputation and that the opposite parties had also apologised to the petitioner for their earlier posts, the Court observed that a case of grant of interim relief was made out in favour of the petitioner.

“The balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the petitioner, as he will suffer a greater inconvenience by refusing to grant a temporary injunction than the likely inconvenience that may be caused to the opposite party by granting an injunction. The petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury from the defamatory statement published by the opposite party, which cannot be compensated in terms of money,” the Court further observed.

In view of this, after issuing notice to the opposite party and posting the matter in the week commencing November 18, 2024, the Court passed an interim order restraining the opposite parties from publishing any information, video, contents, etc., regarding the plaintiff that may be damaging to the plaintiff's reputation until the next date of listing.