Delhi Court Rejects Youtuber Gaurav Taneja's Suit Over Allegedly Defamatory Article Published By Mint Newspaper

A Delhi Court has rejected the suit filed by Youtuber Gaurav Taneja, popularly known as 'Flying Beast', and his wife Ritu Rathee against an allegedly defamatory article published by the Mint newspaper, on May 8, 2022.

Civil Judge Anurag Chhabra of Tis Hazari Courts rejected the suit after observing that the plaintiffs had merely stated that the article was defamatory in nature against them without any mention of the portions of the article in the plaint showing as to how the same was defamatory.

"It is not in dispute that fundamental right curtailed in Section 19 of the Constitution of India is not unrestricted. However, the plaintiffs shall prove before the court that the said articles are defamatory in nature and only then Article 19 (2) comes into picture. Moreover, it is difficult to segregate the private life of the public figures from their public life," the Court observed.

The article in question titled "Shouldn't brands stop supporting sordid influencers?" was published after Taneja had posted a picture on twitter wherein he was seen performing havan as per the Hindu rites and traditions.

In the said picture, he had elaborated the importance of havan as a natural antidote to pollution. Therefore, the suit alleged that the article was written using derogatory and disparaging words about Taneja and his wife which had lowered their image and reputation.

The plaintiffs had sought a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants directing them to forthwith delete or take down defamatory article from their profile or from any other website where the allegedly defamatory material were published against them. It also sought directions against Defendant no. 2 and 3 to be restrained from approaching the brands having collaborations with the plaintiffs in respect to the dispute in the suit.

At the outset, the Court observed that plaintiffs ought to have sought the relief of declaration from the court in order to get the said articles declared defamatory in nature qua the plaintiffs.

"The court is of the opinion that the plaint does not disclose cause of action as the plaintiffs have not sought the relief of declaration from the court and the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction sought by the plaintiffs are dependent upon the adjudication of the aspect whether the said articles are defamatory in nature or not," the Court observed.

Accordingly, the suit was rejected. The Court also dismissed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

Click Here To Read Order