Following is a report received from CyberLaw India.com about a Case in Delhi High Court on Cyber Defamation. In view of the academic interest in this type of Case, it is reproduced here with brief comments:

 

In India’s first case of cyber defamation,  a Court in Delhi assumed jurisdiction over a matter where a corporate was being defamed through emails and passed an important ex-parte injunction.

 The Delhi High Court has passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction in the case entitled “SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra”.  This matter is being handled by India’s leading Cyber lawyer  Mr. Pavan Duggal. 

 In this case, the defendant Jogesh Kwatra being an employee of the plaintiff company started sending derogatory, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, filthy and abusive emails to his employers as also to different subsidiaries of the said company all over the world with the aim to defame the company and its Managing Director.  The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from doing his illegal acts of sending derogatory emails to the plaintiffs.

 Arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs Mr. Pavan Duggal contended that the emails sent by the defendant were distinctly obscene, vulgar, abusive, intimidating, humiliating and defamatory in nature.  Mr. Duggal  argued that the aim of sending the said emails was to malign the impeccable reputation of the plaintiffs all over India and the world.  

 Mr. Duggal further contended that the acts of the defendant in sending the emails had resulted in invasion of legal rights of the plaintiffs.  Further the defendant is under a duty not to send the aforesaid emails.  

 After hearing detailed arguments of Mr. Duggal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J D Kapoor of the Delhi High Court passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction observing that a prima facie case had been made out by the plaintiffs.  Consequently,  the Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from sending derogatory, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, humiliating and abusive emails either to the plaintiffs or  to its sister subsidiaries all over the world including their Managing Directors and their Sales and Marketing departments.  Further, Hon’ble Justice J D Kapoor also restrained the defendant from publishing, transmitting or causing to be published any information  which is derogatory or defamatory or abusive of the plaintiffs. The matter has now been posted for 4th of October, 2001. 

 This order of Delhi High Court assumes tremendous significance as this is for the first time that an Indian Court has assumed jurisdiction in a matter concerning cyber defamation and granted an ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from defaming the plaintiffs by sending derogatory, defamatory, abusive and obscene emails either to the plaintiffs or their subsidiaries.

In the absence of the copies of the mails sent by the accused and the background to the contents, it is difficult to comment on the case. 

Normally "Defamation" requires publication of  "False Information" and that the Communication should be to the Public.If the communication is to a closed group, the possibility of "Defamation" is low.

In the instant case for example, it appears that the communication was to the employees of the organisation by e-mail and not through a publicly accessible web site.

If the contents of the communication is not blatantly false, then this communication is more like a "Trade Union" kind of  communication.

We may need to ponder, whether a speech by a dissatisfied employee to his fellow collegues be considered as defamation ? or Trade union activity? ..And whether it becomes a "Defamation" if the employee makes an "electronic speech" before the same audience?

Interesting issues on freedom of speech and trade union rights are involved in the case and I hope they will be discussed during the course of the trial.

The progress of the case would be interesting to follow.

P.S: The above comments are passed for academic discussion. In the absence of the details of the case and since the matter is perhaps considered sub-judice, it may not be proper to pass any other comment for the time being.

Naavi
June 25, 2001

Related Article from Abbottlaw.com