Litigation News

"Allegation is that we are linked to the drug mafia" Rajiv Nayar during Bollywood suit against Republic and Times Now [Live Updates]

The Delhi High Court is hearing the suit today.
Arnab Goswami, Pradeep Bhandari, Navika Kumar, Rahul Shivshankar
Arnab Goswami, Pradeep Bhandari, Navika Kumar, Rahul Shivshankar

Matter posted to be taken up next on December 14. Hearing has ended.

Adds in order that no defamatory content should be uploaded on Social Media or displayed on their channels.

Court records assurance by Defendants that they will follow the Programme Code and the Cable TV Rules. Court: From hereon I expect them to follow the code.

Trivedi for Republic seeks more time to file reply: My client is in judicial custody. Court: It is a company, there are other people there

Court adds that only thing is: Some people have to be told that there is law and it has to be followed.

Sethi observes of course not.

Court on the question of interim relief, orally observes that defendant cannot say I cannot follow the law.

Court records that notice has been accepted. Written Statement and reply to the application to be filed in 2 weeks. Rejoinder before the next date of hearing.

Amended memo of parties to be filed within 5 days

DelhiHighCourt issues summons and notice in suit by Bollywood Producers seeking to curb the irresponsible, derogatory remarks made against the film industry by news channels.

Delhi High Court directs the deletion of YouTube from array of parties. Court was earlier informed that since Google is a party, there is no need for YouTube to be impleaded.

Kapil Sibal for Facebook Inc says FB will abide by any orders of the court. But otherwise, there is no need to implead FB in court, he submits.

Court: Have you seen the kind of language used... Now participants on TV are using curse words on live TV channels because they get so excited. If you keep egging them on, that is what happens.

Advocate Jatinder Kumar Sethi, appearing for defendant side, asserts that the media was reporting on facts.

Court: Does no one take responsibility for these kinds of incidents?

Court refers to an incident where a school teacher almost got killed by lynching by residents after media reported she disseminated obscene material.

Trivedi: We realise the sharpness of language has created issues..

Court: Please start with the premise that I am not saying you cannot report. You can report. It is the manner of reporting. There is no civility in discourse. You are a broadcaster...

Trivedi highlights that it cannot be ignored that there were two mysterious deaths here and a lot of the information came to the public domain because of the media's work

Court: I will be the first one to say, they (media) have done some outstanding work.

Malvika Trivedi (for Defendants): One case cannot make the law today, we have to look at the work of the media that has been done till now. In the

Court: It applies to all of you. What is to be done here? You cannot have a code and you say that because they don't have teeth, they keep passing these orders and you have to come to court to enforce.

Court: But see what happens... in the case of Princess Diana. She died because she was racing away from the media. You can't just go on like this. The Courts are the last ones to want to regulate.

Court: No one wants to have his private life dragged in public. That element of privacy gets diluted (for public personas) to a certain extent. If you live on public praise, you are likely to get a certain amount of flak as well.

Court (to Sethi): You need to rise above your brief and say what needs to be done about this? At the end of the day, how are we going to resolve this issue?

Court: Here there isn't even an FIR and people start identifying the person... Even trained minds get affected.

The court notes that in England when charge sheets are filed, the accused person's ID is only disclosed as a "person of interest."

Court: Because you are prejudging - more opinions less news....What are we to do about this? It is a general remark across the board. All of you have to think about it. It is a little disheartening and demoralizes everyone.

Court had also remarked: There needs to be some toning down. There are orders of NBSA. But it seems that news channels are not following that. As an officer of the court, what is the next step here if you do not follow self-regulation?

Justice Shakdher: ... Maybe I am old school

Court: What is that should be put in place to change the way the reporting is carried out? All kinds of things shown behind the broadcaster, a flame..

Court says that Sethi can argue on technical grounds. However, it requests Sethi to "rise above his brief" and answer larger issues.

Sethi: Surely neither do plaintiffs have a right of privacy and it is not their allegation that their privacy has been violated - neither are the individuals who should have been aggrieved before the courts. Some third party has come before the courts

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi for Times Now disputes maintainability of the suit, argues that those aggrieved are not before the Court.

Poovayya also submits, inter alia, that the kind of orders Twitter can comply with. Says content under an entire hashtag cannot be taken down, but if the court directs some content to be taken down, this can be done.

Sajan Poovayya appears for Twitter, points out that some Twitter subsidiaries have been wrongly impleaded.

Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam appears for Google says they have not been served with papers as filed. They were given papers in October, but there have been changes. He seeks for copies of papers as filed and requests that YouTube may be deleted from party array

Court: We used to find Doordarshan very stale, but we had some lovely broadcasters then... I was actually thinking black and white and DD was much better.

Court: Courts hesitate (in restraining media reports) because it is a constitutional right. But you are right, we expect fair reportage.. but sadly, not only in India but globally...

Sibal: But the idea is not to attack the fourth estate. What we called yellow journalism - that fringe has become mainstream. So a signal has to come from the court

Sibal: We know of the narrative that is going on in so many cases. The idea is not to attack the media as a whole. The idea is this has to stop. It is crossing a line. It is not that we are half-hearted.

Sibal: With the kind of vitriolic attack going on, there is an element - you are right, there is hesitation - the individuals are vulnerable. The minute they come forward, there is a counter-attack.

Akhil Sibal: At times there is strength in numbers. Sibal points out that Republic and Times Now claim to represent 70% of English news audiences.

Nayar points out that when individuals come forward: You come and you are exposed to more attacks. However, he adds: Some specific persons can be impleaded, there is no difficulty. Now that we are in Court...

Court: Why? Courtage of being heard? Nayar: No, I am not saying your Lordhsip is not hearing.

Nayar: It takes courage to come this far.

Court remarks that without individuals as plaintiffs it appears to be a case of "Willing to strike, but unwilling to hurt."

In response to another query, Nayar says: At the moment, we are on injunction only. We reserve the rights to claim damages.

Nayar adds: There is no difficulty, we can add a few more individuals (as plaintiffs).

Court: I understand that. But there is a defamation of a class and defamation of individuals.

Nayar: They are members of the association

Court: The only question I have - there are some individuals (who claim to be aggrieved) Why haven't they themselves become plaintiffs?

Nayar, referring to the sixth ground: "I am damned even before the trial starts."

Nayar says there are 6 grounds in the matter: 1. Defamation 2. Breach of Right to Privacy 3. Jeopardizing personal safety 4. Injurious falsehood 5. Breach of Programme Code 6. Parallel investigations contrary to expectations of a fair trial.

Sibal refers to comments under YouTube videos of media coverage where persons are commenting against Bollywood. Those are the YouTube videos that we are seeking be taken down immediately.

Sibal: There is a statutory scheme and a programme code under the Cable TV Network Rules by which these channels are bound.

Sibal: (In pending cases) matters and being dissected, described as evidence - whether it is evidence or not, admissible or not - those are matters for the court! There are accusations, speculations, who will be called next... all of that is being discussed threadbare.

The case being referred to is Dr. Shashi Tharoor vs Arnab Goswami & Anr: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157940121/

Akhil Sibal: The advice of court is not heeded, tempering is not happening, so something more stringent is required. (Reference is to how courts have refrained from issuing injunctions with advice for sensitive, restrained, careful media reporting on pending trials)

Akhil Sibal refers to NBSA order which states that use of words such as "alleged" "purported" etc. in pending cases cannot be overemphasised.

Sibal continues reading another NBSA report where it says is not unmindful of public media crusades which become

Akil Sibal refers to NBA code which cautions against media making conjectures and speculations in pending cases. Sibal: These are the standards set by the industry itself.

Sibal also submitted that there is now a disjunct between journalism, which has certain principles associated with journalism, and news media, a certain section of which seems to have abandoned those principles.

Akhil Sibal: Courts have traditionally, in the past, expressed hope about self-regulation, auto-course correction. So they have been circumspect. But the point is it (course correction) is not taking place.

Nayar: This is to show how public perception is influencing all kinds of people.

Nayar refers to bail order passed in Vibhor Anand's case, where he had mentioned that he had submitted that he was carried away by Republic Bharat's reporting on the Disha Salian case.

Also Read
Delhi Lawyer accused of making defamatory comments in Sushant Singh Rajput case, Vibhor Anand gets bail on showing repentance

Nayar comes to prayers: I can understand "fair comment", but can someone says don't restrain me from making irresponsible, defamatory remarks? From carrying out a Media Trial?

Nayar: We have one channel chasing Deepika Padukone... Chasing is not a difficulty. But when you start saying 'Oh look at her sweat, paseena aa raha hein..."

Nayar: Only media with some responsibility is India Today. They realised the mistake and said they are making amends

Nayar: That is how the course of this entire defamatory campaign - scurrilous, I must say - has changed.

Nayar also refers to reports by ABP News and Zee News.

Nayar: It started with reportage on Sushant Singh Rajput's suicide. Suicide became murder. Bollywood became criminals, drug peddlers, ISI, Pro-Pakistani Jehadis.

Nayar refers to how Rhea Chakraborty's WhatsApp chats concerning NCB probe were disclosed by Times Now.

Nayar: This is more dangerous because this is actually the course of investigation.

Nayar: Times Now goes a step further because they access my WhatsApp chats and violate my right to privacy. My WhatsApp chats with the Narcotics Control Bureau... are accessed by them and put on the public domain

Nayar goes on to narrate another report: Now come to page...

Court: So, there are several of these reports.

Nayar: Yes. I just wanted to show that when you start to use this as a means to increase your TRP, others start following.

Nayar goes on narrating media reports: Now it is alleged as if Shahrukh Khan has links with Pakistan and ISI

Nayar refers to headline that appeared on Republic TV that following their reports actor Shahrukh Khan to Karan Johar will now "renounce links with pro-Pak, anti-India Lobby".

Nayar: It does not stop here. Now they proceed as if we have links with Pakistan and ISI.

Your Lordship will see how the reports start with reports on Sushant Singh and move on to links with drug peddlers and Pakistan.

Nayar goes on to recount reports where Sara Ali Khan, Shraddha Kapoor, Deepika Padukone were named in such media reports which said: "we need to boycott all 'druggies'".

Nayar recounts in September 22 report, it was said "clean up and boycott the Bollywood dirt.

Nayar goes on narrating other media reports.

Nayar: Allegation is that we are linked to the drug mafia.

Nayar refers to Republic TV's show hosted by Arnab Goswami where he referred to "a kingpin producer in Bollywood", other references to "Bollywood's rotting cabal" in reports on Sushant Singh Rajput's death. 

Nayar refers to a September 22 report next.

Nayar informs court: I am appearing for all the plaintiffs, Mr Akhil Sibal appears with me

Advocate Neela Gokhale appears for plaintiff number 2, she informs Court.

Hearing begins.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar: Me and Advocate Akhil Sibal appear for the plaintiffs

The Delhi High Court is hearing a suit filed by Bollywood Production Houses seeking to curb the irresponsible, derogatory remarks made against the film industry by news channels.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher is hearing the matter today.

The suit came as a counter to the 'Bollywood drugs mafia' reportage by Republic TV and Times Now.

Also Read
10 contentions in the 1,069-page suit filed by Bollywood producers against Republic TV, Times Now

Live updates from the hearing feature here

Delhi High Court
Arnab Goswami
Republic TV
Times Now
Bollywood
Navika Kumar

Related Stories

No stories found.
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com