[BREAKING] Delhi High Court restrains Audrey Truschke, others from publishing defamatory content against Vikram Sampath

The Delhi High Court on Friday passed an ad-interim order directing historians Audrey Truschke, Ananya Chakravarti and Rohit Chopra (defendants) not to publish any defamatory content alleging plagiarism against historian Vikram Sampath in relation to his works on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar [Dr. Vikram Sampath v Dr. Audrey Truschke and Ors]..Single-judge Justice Amit Bansal also noted Twitter's argument that if Sampath provides URLs of tweets containing a letter written by the defendants to the President of Royal Historical Society (RHS) Emma Griffin accusing Sampath of plagiarism, the same will be taken down by the social media platform."In my view a prima facie case is made. the continued publication of the letter has been causing considerable damage to the plaintiff's reputation and career. Balance of convenience is also in his favor and irreparable damage will be cause if the injunction is not granted. Consequently, till the next date of hearing, the defendants are restrained from publishing the letter or any other defamatory material on twitter as well as any other online or offline platforms," the order said."Senior Counsel for Twitter said that if urls (of Tweets with the letter copy) are provided,the same will be taken down by them," the single-judge recorded in his order.However, no interim order was passed against Twitter.The Court proceeded to issue summons to the defendants and posted the case for hearing next on April 1, 2022..Defendants are restrained from publishing the letter or any other defamatory material on twitter as well as any other online or offline platforms.Delhi High Court.Sampath approached the Delhi High Court seeking ₹2 crores in damages from Truschke and two others.Sampath in his suit also sought permanent injunction on publication of the letter dated February 11 written by these historians to Emma Griffin, President of Royal Historical Society (RHS) in Britain.In the letter, Truschke and others had alleged that they had found a “pervasive, long-standing pattern of plagiarism” in the work Sampath who was recently elected as a member to the Society.The plea also has tech journalist Abhishek Baxi, Professor Ashok Swain, Twitter and Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology as defendants.Baxi and Swain had tweeted the same letter from their handles..Advocate Raghav Awasthi, appearing for Sampath contended that the allegation by the defendants was that he had plagiarised despite the fact that his work has cited sources. "I am the biographer of VD Savarkar. The sum and substance of allegation against me is that I have plagiarised but I have cited everybody," Awasthi said.The Bench said that the plaintiff has to show that he has not plagiarised. "You have to show me whether you have plagiarised or not," the judge said. "This letter has very conveniently omitted the fact that I have cited the sources and that it was a speech not an article," Awasthi replied."First allegation is that you have plagiarised the work of Mr Chaturvedi and then Mr Bakhle right," the Bench queried. "Yes, I have given extensive footnotes for all this in my book," Awasti replied."My submission is that I have cited all the professors and I have very clearly noted the essay from which the paragraphs have been extracted. I have cited everybody. Ultimately as a scholar the only capital I have is my reputation," Awasthi maintained."You are aggrieved by the letter as well as the tweets," the Bench asked. "Yes, the letter is the reason for the tweets. I will be an academic pariah if this is allowed," Awasthi contended..Yes, the letter is the reason for the tweets. I will be an academic pariah if this is allowed"Raghav Awasthi, Counsel for Sampath.Advocate Jawahar Raja appearing for one of the defendants said that sentences have been lifted verbatim from works cited and in such cases mere giving citations will not be sufficient. "He has referenced some of the articles but when you borrow the entire idea that is not enough. Sentences have been lifted verbatim. My concern is that the issue of reputation but it also goes to heart of plagiarism. The questions is that are these citations enough," Raja asked.The Court the asked whether the letter was published anywhere.Awasthi said that it has been put up on Twitter..Senior Counsel Sajan Poovayya appearing for Twitter said that the social media platform is willing to pull down the tweets which has put up the letter."I cannot have any objection to grant of the prayer. It says the letter have to be taken down, it can be done," he said. However, he added that tweeting and commenting about the letter is not something which the intermediary can interfere with."As far as the tweeting and commenting of the letter is concerned I cannnot to anything. It is not for intermediary to get involved in that," Poovayya said..The Court after considering the balance of convenience passed an ad-interim order in favour of Sampath..In his suit, Sampath argued that the charges of plagiarism against him “falls completely flat and is very clearly libelous” and “the same is being done as part of an international smear campaign in order to discredit the plaintiff because he has shown the academic courage and gumption to challenge the prevailing narrative around a historical figure like Sh. VD Savarkar.”“This is evident from the fact that in all the instances of plagiarism that are being cited here there is not one wherein the Plaintiff' is not guilty of attributing the source material to the original author,” the suit read..The plea further stated that the letter in question was being quoted and shared extensively on twitter which made it clear that there was a motivated smear campaign against him.“That it is further most humbly submitted that for an academician, the Plaintiff's only capital is his professional reputation and if this hit job is allowed to stand then what it would imply is that there would be damage done to the Plaintiff that cannot be compensated in terms of money. This is not at the first instance for beseeching the Hon’ble Court for relief. As ardent votaries of free speech, the Plaintiff has allowed for the last 5 months, since October 2021, several individuals to make malicious, defamatory statements against him and chosen to respond to that in the best interests of everyone's free speech. This libellous content over 5 months has already caused considerable damage to Plaintiff's reputation, works and career,” the suit stated.It added that there is a systematic pattern of maligning for vested and ideological reasons."Why this instance is the last straw on the camel's back is it prejudices the plaintiff irrevocably especially in academic circles where plagiarism is viewed very seriously. This would close all doors forever in academic careers, possibly cancel his Fellowship at the Royal Historical Society and also force many publishers to withdraw his books and cancel future contracts. In effect, if this letter is allowed to go free pass, then it will permanently destroy the Plaintiff's career and reputation built painstakingly over 15 years. Hence despite being champions of free speech the plaintiff is constrained to seek an immediate injunction,” it was contended..Vikram Sampath moves Delhi High Court seeking ₹2 crore compensation from historians who accused him of plagiarism