Amit Bansal JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J.
I.A. 15606/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC)
1. The present suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction and damages against the defendants on account of defamatory statements made on behalf of the defendants no. 1 to 6 on the social media platforms of the defendants no. 7 and 8.
2. The plaintiff is the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi and is a Constitutional Authority. The defendant no. 1 is a political party, Aam Aadmi Party. The defendants no. 2 to 6 are office bearers of the defendant no. 1 Party.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants no. 1 to 6 have launched a barrage of personal attacks against the plaintiff, making unsubstantiated and baseless allegations that the plaintiff has indulged in corruption and money laundering to the tune of Rs. 1,400,00,00,000/- (rupees one thousand four hundred crores) at the time of demonetization in November, 2016, while the plaintiff was the Chairman of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC).
4. The defendants no. 1 to 6 have created and circulated hashtags, which include "#LG Saxena Ko Giraftar Karo" and "#LG Saxena Chor Hai". Further, the defendants no. 1 to 6 have posted various tweets and videos in the form of interviews and press conferences on social media platforms of the defendants no. 7 and 8 in order to tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff.
5. The defendants no. 1 to 6 have also conducted interviews in the news media towards defaming the plaintiff. The whole foundation of the libelous posts/tweets and slanderous statements of the defendants no. 1 to 6 is based on extracts of the statements of two accused persons, being Mr. Sanjeev Malik and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, former employees of KVIC, recorded pursuant to the FIR dated 10th July, 2017 bearing no. RC-DAI-2017-A-0026 filed at page 606 of the documents of the plaintiff.
6. To illustrate, some of the posts of the defendants no. 1 to 6 are set out below:
7. In the FIR, the aforesaid accused are stated to have siphoned off approximately Rs. 17,00,000/-, which the defendants no. 1 to 6 have alleged as having been done under the pressure of the plaintiff, who was then the Chairman of KVIC.
8. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the screenshots of the tweets/re-tweets of the defendants filed at pages 58 and 60 of the documents filed by the plaintiff, wherein the defendants no. 1 to 6 have tweeted that the plaintiff has assigned a contract worth Rs. 80,00,00,000/- (rupees eighty crores) to his daughter, while he was the Chairman of KVIC. Photograph of the plaintiff along with his daughter has also been posted with these tweets.
9. Yet another allegation has been made against the plaintiff that in violation of the rules of KVIC, during the tenure of the plaintiff as Chairman, cash was distributed to the weavers in Bhagalpur, Bihar. Reference in this regard is made to the tweets by the defendant no. 1, screenshots of which are filed at page 31 of the documents of the plaintiff and the video of the press conference dated 7th September, 2022 conducted by the defendant no. 6, which has been made available for public viewing on the social media platform of the defendant no. 8.
10. A legal notice dated 5th September, 2022 was also issued on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendants no. 1 to 6 calling upon the defendants no. 1 to 6 to refrain from making defamatory statements against the plaintiff. However, no reply has been received by the plaintiff.
11. Senior counsels appearing on behalf of the plaintiff have made the following submissions:
(i) The alleged statements made by the accused persons pursuant to the afo........