"Piercing ears of girl child not child abuse:" Delhi High Court directs Mint newspaper to take down article against YouTuber Gaurav Taneja

Piercing the ears of a girl child cannot be termed as child abuse, the Delhi High Court recently held, while passing an interim order directing Mint newspaper to take down a defamatory article against popular YouTuber Gaurav Taneja (Flying Beast) and his wife Ritu Rathee..The article raising allegations of child abuse by Taneja and Rathee was published by Mint on May 8, taking exception to a video put out by Taneja on his social media handles in which he was seen piercing the elder daughter's ears. “Piercing the ears of a girl child cannot be termed as child abuse. Allegations of child abuse are serious allegations and cannot be made without due care and verification. It cannot be based on the opinions of the author,” the Court said.Justice Amit Bansal besides ordering take down of the article also restrained Mint, its journalist Shephali Bhatt and editor-chief Shruthijith KK from posting, circulating or publishing the article on any online or offline platform. The Court also directed journalist Abhishek Baxi to take down his tweet regarding the article and to refrain from posting, circulating or publishing any similar defamatory content against Taneja and his wife on any social media or online/offline platform.“Undoubtedly, a person has a right to criticize the views expressed by an individual and such criticism would be covered under right to free speech. However, vicious attacks cannot be made on the character of a person under the guise of journalistic freedom and free speech. In my prima facie view, there is nothing in the aforesaid videos to substantiate allegations of child abuse,” the Court said. .The Court was dealing with a suit by Taneja and Rathee through advocate Mukesh Sharma seeking permanent injunction against Mint and its journalist with regard to an article that was published on its website on May 8.The article titled “Shouldn’t brands stop supporting sordid influencers?” was based on a picture and caption of a housewarming havan tweeted by Taneja. The picture had Taneja, Rathee and their younger daughter performing the pooja.The tweet read, “Hinduism is a science-based way of life” and that on December 3, 1984 two families remained unaffected by the Bhopal Gas leak because they were performing havan.“They performed regular अग्निहोत्र (havan), which is a natural antidote to pollution,” the tweet claimed.The article in Mint also highlighted a video put out by Taneja and it said that "he is filming Ritu piercing their elder daughter's ears and when the daughter asks him not to "vlog" it, he says, "why not!" The 10-minute video then goes on to show the daughter howling and writhing in pain while the camera zooms in on her."A lower court had, in June, rejected Taneja’s defamation suit against Mint and Bhatt..The High Court was told that the article was based on videos posted by the plaintiffs and it made allegations of misogyny, child abuse and abuse of their pet dog.It was further stated that posting of the article as well as tweets has caused immense damage to the reputation of the plaintiff with sponsors..Justice Amit Bansal held that in his prima facie view, there was nothing to substantiate allegations of child abuse the journalist may or may not agree with the views of the plaintiffs but the use of terms like terms like ‘dodo’, ‘bewakoof’ and ‘idiocy’, are clearly defamatory in nature and cannot be permitted on a public platform.“…this Court finds that the plaintiffs have made a prima facie case in their favour and in case no ad interim injunction is granted to the plaintiffs, irreparable harm and injury would continue to be caused to the plaintiffs. So long as the impugned articles and the impugned tweets continue to be in circulation and visible on social media, they are likely to cause damage to the reputation and career of the plaintiffs. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs,” the Court noted.The Court, therefore, directed Mint and its journalist as well as Baxi to take down the article as well as the allegedly defamatory tweets..Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria along with advocates Raghav Awasthi, Mukesh Sharma, Archit Singh and Rachita Sood appeared for the plaintiffs.Advocates Naman Joshi, Guneet Sidhu, Yuvraj Francis, Zaheb Hussain, Soutik Banerjee, Harsh Jain, Devika Tulsiani, Mannat Tipnis, Sanjay Kumar, Abishek K Singh and Saurabh Kumar appeared for the defendants..[Read Order]