MUMBAI: Freedom of the press cannot be used to violate a person's inherent right to reputation and investigative journalism does not enjoy any special protection, the Bombay High Court has said while restraining a journalist from targeting a businessman. Asked to remove online articles and videos.
Justice Bharti Dangre, in an order passed on April 2, said the articles and videos uploaded by independent journalist Wahid Ali Khan were prima facie defamatory. The copy of the order became available on Wednesday.
Khanjan Thakkar, a gold trader operating from Dubai, had sought an interim order that Khan should remove all social media articles and videos defaming him.
Thakkar has already filed a defamation suit against Khan in the High Court, demanding compensation of Rs 100 crore.The application states that the businessman was named by the Mumbai Police as an accused in a case related to online betting/gambling scam and based on this First Information Report, Kha has published stories and videos making baseless defamatory allegations against him. Uploaded a series.
Justice Dangre said in the order that Khan failed to produce any material in support of his allegations.
Khan's lawyer argued that he was exercising his freedom of expression, a constitutional right, and that as a journalist he also had a fundamental duty to distribute information in the public interest.
However, the court said that media persons cannot rely on this defense when one's reputation is at stake.
The order says, "No journalist or reporter is expected to limit his right to speech and expression and cannot claim protection merely by saying that he has received the information from someone else." Was provided and it is in public interest to make it public.,
The court said that freedom of the press has to be balanced with a person's right to reputation.
The order further states that investigative journalism enjoys no special protection, and does not permit the publication of any article "derogatory to public interest" which would amount to lowering the reputation of a person.
Justice Dangre said, "Every person has an inherent individual right to preserve his reputation." He said a balance has to be struck between a person's right to enjoy his reputation and another person's freedom of expression.
H said that cyber defamation or defaming someone online through social media, websites or any other digital platform is an emerging challenge in the digital age.It said the articles and videos uploaded by Khan indicated that they were not supported by any material or source, and the investigative journalism he was attempting was not in the interest of the general public.
The HC ordered Khan to remove the article, saying, "As a journalist, though he may be duty bound to inform the public of facts and data, but certainly at the cost of defaming the plaintiff (Thakkar) This cannot be attempted."The videos I question.
Justice Bharti Dangre, in an order passed on April 2, said the articles and videos uploaded by independent journalist Wahid Ali Khan were prima facie defamatory. The copy of the order became available on Wednesday.
Khanjan Thakkar, a gold trader operating from Dubai, had sought an interim order that Khan should remove all social media articles and videos defaming him.
Thakkar has already filed a defamation suit against Khan in the High Court, demanding compensation of Rs 100 crore.The application states that the businessman was named by the Mumbai Police as an accused in a case related to online betting/gambling scam and based on this First Information Report, Kha has published stories and videos making baseless defamatory allegations against him. Uploaded a series.
Justice Dangre said in the order that Khan failed to produce any material in support of his allegations.
Khan's lawyer argued that he was exercising his freedom of expression, a constitutional right, and that as a journalist he also had a fundamental duty to distribute information in the public interest.
However, the court said that media persons cannot rely on this defense when one's reputation is at stake.
The order says, "No journalist or reporter is expected to limit his right to speech and expression and cannot claim protection merely by saying that he has received the information from someone else." Was provided and it is in public interest to make it public.,
The court said that freedom of the press has to be balanced with a person's right to reputation.
The order further states that investigative journalism enjoys no special protection, and does not permit the publication of any article "derogatory to public interest" which would amount to lowering the reputation of a person.
Justice Dangre said, "Every person has an inherent individual right to preserve his reputation." He said a balance has to be struck between a person's right to enjoy his reputation and another person's freedom of expression.
H said that cyber defamation or defaming someone online through social media, websites or any other digital platform is an emerging challenge in the digital age.It said the articles and videos uploaded by Khan indicated that they were not supported by any material or source, and the investigative journalism he was attempting was not in the interest of the general public.
The HC ordered Khan to remove the article, saying, "As a journalist, though he may be duty bound to inform the public of facts and data, but certainly at the cost of defaming the plaintiff (Thakkar) This cannot be attempted."The videos I question.
