The Bombay High Court on Monday granted interim relief to the Serum Institute of India (SII) in its defamation suit, wherein it is seeking damages amounting to Rs 100 crore from various organizations and individuals.
These entities are accused of disseminating false and misleading content against the company.
A single judge-Justice Riyaz Chagla allowed the interim application filed by SII and Adar Poonawalla against Yohan Tengra and Ambar Kori, social media influencers, stating that the statements made were defamatory on the face of it, and there was no justification for them.
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had posted defamatory content, such as articles and videos about Poonawalla and the negative effects of the Covishield vaccine. They requested an apology and a permanent injunction from the defendants.
A senior advocate, Aspi Chinoy appearing for the SII argued that those responsible for saving millions of lives are being branded as murderers.
The Senior Advocate stated that although individuals are entitled to their own opinions, they cannot publish them in such a way. According to official data, there have been alleged reports of 12 deaths after 219 million Covishield vaccines were administered.
He further argued that the benefits of the vaccine thus far outweigh the possible adverse effects. Further, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) also issued an advisory that stated that there was a tiny but definite risk of thromboembolic events and that the reporting rate was around 0.61/million doses after examining the AEFI data.
Chinoy noted that the defendant Yohan Tengra made defamatory statements on his YouTube channel and used petitions filed in various courts, like by a Pune doctor who had lost his daughter, as well as two others filed in the Kerala HC and one in the Supreme Court to launch a “smear campaign.” The defamatory content referred to plaintiffs as “murderers” and “criminals.” He also pointed out that no adverse orders were passed in any of the petitions and that reckless independent statements were made on social media.
The defense lawyers, Nilesh Ojha and Abhishek Mishra, claimed that their clients were using the defense of truth in the case. Ojha filed two counter applications alleging concealment in the lawsuit and argued that a study had shown that the vaccine increased the risk of death and cancer. He also pointed out that many European countries had banned the vaccine after just one death.
Ojha replied to Justice Chagla’s statement that getting vaccinated is voluntary by stating that the Maharashtra government made it mandatory for citizens to get vaccinated if they want to travel on local trains. Ojha further claimed that SII had no involvement when a doctor from Pune repeatedly requested medication from the company before his daughter’s death.
Changez Keswani, the advocate for Google LLC, argued that the company could not proactively monitor all videos on YouTube and would need a court order to determine if a video was defamatory. Only after the author failed to remove the video, should a specific list of URLs containing defamatory videos be directed to be taken down by Google LLC.
