The Bombay High Court has emphasized once again that while the press enjoys freedom, it must not misuse it to violate an individual's fundamental right to reputation.

In her ruling, Justice Bharati Dangre, overseeing the case, underscored the need for a balance between the evolving concept of press freedom, akin to speech, and an individual's right to maintain their reputation.

The court emphasized that truth serves as a complete defense against libel and slander charges. However, it directed independent journalist Waahiid Ali Khan to remove online articles and videos targeting businessmen, highlighting the importance of journalists adhering to the boundaries of their rights to speech and expression.

The case revolved around an interim plea filed by Khanjan Thakkar, a gold trader based in Dubai (Plaintiff), who requested the removal of defamatory social media content targeting him. Thakkar alleged that Khan circulated false and derogatory information under the guise of investigative journalism. As a result, Thakkar has filed a defamation suit against Khan, seeking damages amounting to Rs. 100 crore.

The court rejected the idea that journalists could assert immunity simply by arguing that information was provided to them and was in the public interest. It also clarified that while investigative journalism may claim to serve the public interest, it does not justify publications that damage a person's reputation.

The court issued the order, emphasizing that "Investigative Journalism does not receive special protection, and claims of public interest do not justify a publication that diminishes any person's reputation, especially without substantiating the publication's truthfulness."

The court acknowledged the challenge of cyber defamation in the digital age, highlighting that Khan's articles and videos lacked credible sources and failed to serve the public interest.

The court stressed that a journalist's track record of uncovering scams does not confer upon them the authority to publish articles or columns that may incite hatred, ridicule, or contempt towards the plaintiff. Mere assertions of serving the public interest through such publications do not exempt the journalist from facing the repercussions of their actions.

As a result, the court directed Khan to remove the articles and videos in question. Additionally, the court issued a temporary restraint on Khan, prohibiting him from printing, publishing, selling, exhibiting, circulating the disputed articles, and streaming or sharing the video on any social media platform or other public domain platform until the suit is heard and finally disposed of.

Khan is also barred from engaging in any other activities that could constitute defamation of the plaintiff.

Khan is required to comply with this directive within one week from the date of the order's upload. In the event of non-compliance, the plaintiff is granted the liberty to seek further remedies through the interim application.

Cause Title: Khanjan Jagadishkumar Thakkar v Waahiid Ali Khan & Ors. INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 399 OF 2024