Restraint on free communication during election process not envisaged under law, Delhi HC

While refusing interim relief to a contestant seeking the ex parte removal of certain allegedly defamatory content against him, the Delhi High Court has stated that any restraint on free communication during the process of election is not envisaged under the law relating to elections..The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw in a plea by a contestant for the Delhi Legislative Assembly Election, 2020, SC Vats (Plaintiff)..The Plaintiff has instituted this suit against one Shipra Singh, Hindustan Times newspaper, Google and other unknown parties to restrain them from publishing any defamatory content against him in connection with a rape case registered against him in 2015..He has sought a direction against Hindustan Times to take down an offending publication, titled “BJP Leader S.C. Vats booked for sexually assaulting a woman”..In 2015, Singh had lodged a complaint against the Plaintiff for offences under Section 376 (2), 354, 354A, B&D, 201 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 67 of the Information Act, 2000 and an FIR was registered..Subsequently, in January 2018, the Trial Court discharged the Plaintiff of the offence of rape and the case was remitted to the Magistrate for trial of other offences. .As far as other offences are concerned, Vats has not been charged as yet and the case is pending..It was the Plaintiff's concern that in spite of being discharge of rape, the report on him being booked for sexually assaulting a woman was still available..The Plaintiff contended that once he has been discharged of the charge of rape, the content on the website of Hindustan Times stating that he had been booked under Section 376 of the IPC, was ex facie defamatory and hampered his chances in the ensuing election..To support his stance, the Plaintiff drew the Court’s attention to certain WhatsApp messages being circulated on the basis of the news report..The Court thus issued summons in the suit but refused to pass an ex parte direction for removal of the impugned content from the electronic platform..The Court noted that although the Plaintiff had been discharged of the offence under Section 376, he was still an accused with respect to the offence under Section 354, 354A, B&D, 201, 506 IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act..The Court opined that it could not pass any order directing the dissection of the allegedly defamatory material..As far as taking down the entire article was concerned, the Court stated,...it is up to the plaintiff to inform its electorate that he has been discharged of the offence under Section 376 IPC.Delhi High Court .The Court further stated that in terms of the Supreme Court’s directions in Union of India Vs. Association of Democratic Reforms (2002) and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the electorate should have all available information relating to the candidate seeking their franchise and once that objective is to be served, interference by the Court would deprive the electorate of a fair chance to decide on the candidate from their constituency whom they want to elect..In view of the FIR with respect to other offences being pending, the Court concluded that no case was made out for grant of ex parte order..It said,“.. even though (the Plaintiff has been) discharged of the offence under Section 376 IPC, (he) cannot seek to obliterate from the internet the information to the said extent and only has a right to issue a clarification with respect thereto. It also cannot be lost sight of that the offences of assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty (Section 354), sexual harassment (Section 354A) or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe (Section 354B), stalking (Section 354D) etc. of which the plaintiff is still accused, are allied to the offence of rape (Section 376) of which the plaintiff has been discharged and the impact of other offences of which plaintiff is still accused on the public is likely to be the same as of offence of which plaintiff is discharged.”.The Court added that it has been held that candidates could not be bound by the promises made by them to the electorate during campaigning..On the same basis, the Court opined that any restraint on free communication during the process of election is not envisaged under the law relating to elections..It said,.It has been held that during election and campaigning for elections, a lot of claims and speeches are made and at least the candidates contesting the election cannot be bound by the promises made by them to the electorate and on the same parity, I feel that any restraint on free communication during the process of election is not envisaged under the law relating to elections.Delhi High Court .The matter would be heard next on February 19..The Plaintiff was represented by Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi, Sanjeev Sindhwani with Advocates Saket Sikri, Ekta Sikri, Nikhil Singhvi, Ajay Pal Singh, Kshitij Mudgal..Read the Order: