The Delhi High Court has directed RSS weekly magazine “Organizer,” and another website named “The Commune,” to remove an article that alleged sexual exploitation by the Principal of a prominent Christian school in the national capital.
A single bench of Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the Principal, responding to his suit against the two publications. The article in question, titled “Indian Catholic Church Sex Scandal: Priest exploiting nuns and Hindu women exposed,” was published in June this year.
The article contended that the Principal engaged in sexual misconduct with nuns, Hindu women, staff members, chefs, and students, and also accused him of financial malpractices.
It is to be noted that the protect the anonymity and reputation of the institutions involved, their names were omitted from the court order.
The single bench noted that the Principal had established a prima facie case wherein the impugned article caused damage to his image in society. As long as the article remained accessible to the public, it was likely to continue harming his reputation.
The court stated, “The balance of convenience also lies in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. Irreparable harm and injury shall be caused to the reputation of the Plaintiff if the defamatory article continues on the social media platforms of the Defendants.”
The Principal contended that the allegations of sexual misconduct and financial wrongdoing were baseless and intended solely to tarnish his reputation. Justice Singh found merit in the Principal’s argument that the article lacked factual verification and was published recklessly.
The court further highlighted that the impugned article damaged the image and reputation of the Principal, an esteemed citizen associated with various educational institutions. While acknowledging Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, the court emphasized that this right is subject to restrictions under Article 19(2), including defamation.
“The right to freedom of speech and expression cannot be taken as an unfettered right so as to defame and tarnish the reputation of another person. It has been repeatedly held by Courts that fundamental right to freedom of speech has to be counterbalanced with the right of reputation of an individual,” the bench noted.
