Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday said that passing a blanket gag order on the media against reporting anything against Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty, wife of arrested businessman Raj Kundra, will have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press and said judicial limitation is good. Or what could be construed as bad journalism.
However, Justice Gautam Patel directed that the three videos uploaded on YouTube channels of three private persons be deleted and not uploaded again as they were malicious and did not make a single attempt to investigate the truth of the matter.
The court said that the freedom of the press has to be balanced with the right to privacy of an individual.
All three videos commented on Shetty’s moral standing and questioned the quality of her upbringing following the arrest of her husband Raj Kundra in a case related to the alleged production and streaming of pornographic material on the apps.
The court was hearing a suit filed by Shetty against alleged defamatory articles published against her and the family after her husband’s arrest on July 19. Kundra (45) is presently in jail in judicial custody.
Shetty, in an interim application, had sought the media to stop publishing any false, false, malicious and defamatory material.
However, Justice Patel said that the plaintiff’s prayer to rein in the media would have an impact on the freedom of the press.
The court said that journalism, good or bad, has a judicial limit as it is very close to the freedom of the press.
The court said that the articles referred to by Shetty in his suit are not defamatory.
It can’t be that you (media) are not going to write or say anything nice about me (Shetty), so don’t say anything. How is this possible? Justice Patel said.
The court noted that most of the articles mentioned in the suit, which claimed that “Shetty cried and fought with her husband Kundra” when they were brought to his home for joint questioning by the police, police sources said.
Reporting something on the basis of what police sources have said is not defamatory. If this had happened in the four walls of your house and no one was around, then the matter is different. But this has happened in the presence of outsiders. What kind of slander is this? Justice Patel said.
The court said that at the most it shows that the plaintiff (Shetty) is human and there is nothing wrong in it.
If you have chosen life in the eyes of the people, it will all come as a part of the field. Your life is under a microscope, Justice Patel said.
Shetty’s lawyer Birendra Saraf also objected to an article published on a website Peeping Moon, which claimed that Shetty had “destroyed evidence” in the case in which her husband has been arrested.
Justice Patel, however, said that he is not inclined to direct the removal of this particular article as the material contained therein is prima facie taken from the comprehension of what was said or indicated by the police. Justice Patel said that no part of this order shall be construed as a lie on the media.
The actor’s application also sought damages of Rs 25 crore, contending that the respondents (multiple media publications and social media sites like Google, Facebook and YouTube) were causing irreparable damage and damage to their reputation.
Shetty, in his petition, sought a direction against social media platforms like Google, YouTube and Facebook to remove all defamatory material related to himself and family.
To this Justice Patel said, “Your prayer for social media platforms like Google, YouTube and Facebook to take control of editorial content is dangerous.” The HC directed all the respondents in the trial to file their affidavits and posted the matter for further hearing on September 20.
.