Bombay City Civil Court Passes Gag Order Against Publication Of News/Social Media Posts Connecting Actor Arbaaz Khan With Sushant Singh Rajput Case [Read Order]

The Case has been filed before the Greater Mumbai City Civil & Sessions Court on the account of Defamatory content being posted by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 on social media platforms owned, run and controlled by the Defendant Nos. 4 to 11.

Arbaaz Khan was represented by the Counsel Pradeep Gandhy instructed by DSK Legal team comprising of Mr. Anand Desai, Managing Partner; Ms. Chandrima Mitra, Partner; Mr. Parag Khandhar, Associate Partner and Ms. Ashwini Hariharan, Senior Associate, before the Greater Mumbai City Civil Court Judge, V. V. Vidwans.

Following People/Social Media Platforms/Entities were impleaded as defendants in the Suit:-

Defendant No.1- Ashok Kumar/ John Doe, Defendant No.2- Vibhor Anand, Defendant No.3- Sakshi Bhandari, Defendant No.4- Facebook Inc, Defendant No.5- Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd., Defendant N. 6- Twitter Inc., Defendant No.7- Twitter Communications India Private Limited, Defendant No.8- Twitter International Company, Defendant No.9- YouTube LLC, Defendant No. 10- Google LLC, Defendant No. 11- Google India Pvt. Ltd.

[NOTE: Ashok Kumar/ John Doe- means unknown third party persons who are though not party to this suit, but the Court's order will also apply to them.]

It may be noted that the following Defamatory content has been covered in the suit-

a. Post, videos, tweets, etc. that the Plaintiff (Arbaaz Khan) is arrested and/ or taken into unofficial custody of CBI;

b. Post, videos, tweets, etc. that the Plaintiff (Arbaaz Khan) was involved in killing Sushant Singh Rajput, Disha Salian and some alleged minor girl;

c. Post, videos, tweets, etc. that the Plaintiff (Arbaaz Khan) was involved in the gangrape of some alleged minor girl.

The erroneous portrayal in the posts included stating that the actor was arrested and taken into unofficial custody of CBI.

Arguments Put forth

The Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff has approached the court seeking a perpetual injunction in the suit and temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them from publishing defamatory contents in the social media during the pendency of the suit.

It was submitted that the Plaintiff is a well-known film actor-producer and director. He is a person with a reputation and is a known celebrity in the film industry.

The Counsel for the Plaintiff also took the Court through the various defamatory contents and argued that the nature and the gravity of the contents and allegations specifically revealed against the plaintiff are quite grave and serious in nature causing loss of reputation and are explicitly defamatory and need to be dealt with a strong hand by the court.

Further, it was also submitted that in view of the defamatory contents published in the social media platform, the plaintiff has filed a complaint with Dy. Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime, Cyber Cell, Mumbai on 17-09-2020 for taking action against the defendants u/s 499 of IPC.

He further submitted that the Plaintiff has also served a notice u/s 79 (3) (b) of IT, Act 2000 to the defendants no. 6 to 11 in respect of the Defamatory content.

Court's Interim Order

On Monday (September 28^th) the Court granted an interim order against the named Defendants Vibhor Anand and Sakshi Bhandari, and unknown defendants - which is in the nature of a John Doe / Ashok Kumar.

The Court directed the defendants to immediately withdraw/ recall/ take down the defamatory content including the content described in the suit and any other and further defamatory content which is published directly or indirectly by any of them, as also all and any other posts, messages, tweets, videos, interviews, communications and correspondence similar to the defamatory content in relation to Arbaaz Khan or his family members on all public domains and social media platforms including Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other mediums, and bot publish any further defamatory content.

Significantly, the aforesaid Interim protection has been granted in terms of the prayer clause (a) of the draft Notice of Motion against the defendants no.1 to 3.

Prayer (a) of the draft Notice of Motion reads as follows:

a. Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 be ordered and directed to forthwith withdraw and/or re-call and/or take down the all the Defamatory Content including but not limited to the content described in Exhibit 'A' to the Plaint and any other and further defamatory content which is published directly or indirectly by any of them as also all and any other posts, messages, tweets, videos, interviews, communications and correspondence similar to the Defamatory Content in relation to the Plaintiff and/or members of the Plaintiff's family on all public domains and social media platforms including but not limited to the ones run and operated by the Defendant Nos. 4 - 11 and/or from all other mediums where the same or any of them are hosted or exist;

1. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 representing the unknown persons are hereby restrained from posting re-posting, tweeting, sharing, sending messages and facts on social media platforms and including the platforms run and operated by Defendant Nos. 4 to 11, until further orders.
2. Defendant Nos. 4 to 11 are hereby directed to communicate this order of the Court to the concerned/ competent authorities having its official address in India and abroad so as to make the Court's order effective regarding interim relief granted to the Plaintiff.

The matter is now scheduled for October 12, 2020 for the Reply of the Defendants and further hearing.

It may be noted that recently Actress Rakul Preet Singh has filed an application before the Delhi High Court, seeking an "urgent ad interim direction" restraining the media from reporting on the Bollywood Drag Mafia case, so far as she is concerned.

The actress has stated that the "slander campaign" being run by the media against her has done irreparable damage to her and her family has largely invaded her right to privacy and has even affected her commercial interests, adversely.