Serum Institute's Legal Battle Intensifies as Court Issues Show Cause Notice for Contempt Proceedings Against Defendants
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has directed an intermediary, X Corp, to remove a defamatory video uploaded by Yohan Tegra, a social media influencer, who has been accused of defaming Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd., the renowned manufacturer of vaccines. The decision, rendered by Justice Gauri Godse, highlights the complexities involved in balancing free speech and defamation in the digital age.
The court's order comes in response to an interim application filed by Serum Institute, seeking to enforce a prior injunction dated June 5, 2023, which restrained the defendants from publishing defamatory content. Despite the injunction, Yohan Tegra uploaded a new video, openly defying the court's order and continuing his derogatory remarks against the institute.
The court emphasized that while intermediaries like X Corp are generally exempt from liability under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, they are obligated to act when a court order specifically directs them to remove objectionable content. The court rejected the broader request to prevent future uploads or suspend accounts, stating that such actions would improperly position the intermediary as a censor or adjudicator.
Furthermore, Justice Godse issued a show cause notice to Yohan Tegra and other defendants, requiring them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for violating the court's earlier injunction. The court noted that the defendants' conduct in repeatedly attacking the judiciary and making baseless allegations against the judge constituted contemptuous behavior that warranted serious deprecation.
This case underscores the challenges faced by courts in addressing defamation on digital platforms, balancing the protection of reputations with the principles of free speech. The court's ruling serves as a reminder of the legal responsibilities of intermediaries and the potential consequences for those who defy judicial orders.
Bottom Line :
Intermediary liability under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 - Court can direct intermediary to remove specifically identifiable defamatory content already considered and held objectionable by Court - However, wide directions requiring intermediary to prevent future uploads or suspend accounts cannot be granted as intermediary cannot be made adjudicator or censor - Fresh video uploaded in defiance of prior injunction directed to be taken down - Show cause notice under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC issued for breach of injunction.
Statutory provision(s): Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 79, Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Sections 36 and 51, Contempt of Court provisions.
Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. v. Yohan Tegra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989250
