Delhi court refuses interim injunction against Salman Khurshid's book on Ayodhya, RSS

A Delhi court on Wednesday refused to grant interim injunction against the circulation, publication, distribution and sale of the book “Sunrise Over Ayodhya” written by Congress leader and Senior Advocate Salman Kurshid (Vishnu Gupta vs. State).

The Court was hearing a plea by the President of Hindu Sena claiming that a passage in the book hurt the religious sentiments of a large number of people who follow Hinduism. The plaintiff sought a prohibitory injunction against the defendants and a ban on the book in the larger interest of the society.

Civil Judge Preeti Parewa stated that the author and publisher have the right to write and publish the book and an injunction would cause hardship to the publishers and curtail the author’s right of speech and expression.

"The defendants have the right to write / publish the book. The plaintiff has not been able to establish that inconvenience will be caused to him to avoid the book or alleged "offensive" excerpts of the book. On the other hand, injunction would lead to hardship for the publishers and also curtail the right of speech and expression of the author," the Court said.

Moreover, the plaintiff can always propagate against the book and can even publish rebuttal to the alleged paragraphs which have hurt his sentiments, the judge added.

The book by Khurshid, which drew comparisons between Hindutva and ISIS, had drawn the ire of many.

Miscreants had also vandalised Khurshid's house at Nainital in protest against the book.

In its order today, the Court discussed the judgment in the Morgan Stanely case wherein the Supreme Court had laid down guidelines to be followed by courts while issuing ex­-parte interim injunctions.

Considering the merits of the case, amongst other grounds, the judge reasoned that the defendant had a right to write and publish the book and the plaintiff was not able to establish that inconvenience will be caused to him due to the alleged "offensive" portions of the book.

The Court also observed that only copy of excerpt from the book was placed on record and such excerpt cannot be read in isolation for interpreting the context in which the said statement has been made.

Therefore, it concluded that no prima facie case or exceptional circumstance was made out by the plaintiff for an interim injunction in his favour.

“For the reasons as discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, neither a prima­facie case nor any exceptional circumstance for grant of ad­interim ex­parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff is made out in the present case. Also, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the balance of convenience lies in his favour,” the Court held.

The matter will be heard again November 18 for arguments and clarification on maintainability.

[Read Order]