Scoopwhoop, WhoopScoop, Samdish Bhatia and sexual harassment: Delhi Court refuses to gag

A Delhi Court recently refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of ScoopWhoop CEO Sattvik Mishra to restrain former employee Samdish Bhatia from publicly speaking about allegations of sexual harassment the latter levelled against the former [WHOOPSCOOP MEDIA PVT LTD Vs. SAMDISH BHATIA]..Samdish Bhatia was an employee of Unscripted and Sattvik Mishra was the CEO of Scoop Whoop Media. Bhatia had registered a sexual harassment complaint against Mishra and his wife, and the same is before a Grievance Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act (POSH Act). Samdish also published a Instagram Post regarding his sexual harassment. .ScoopWhoop was later sold to Good Glam Group. A new company called WhoopScoop has now instituted this suit against Samdish Bhatia restraining him against writing or speaking on any allegations between Samdish Bhatia and ScoopWhoop's CEO Sattvik Mishra regarding the incident that occurred on the night of October 7-8. .WhoopScoop's main defence was allegations made by Samdish Bhatia are not covered in the POSH Act, as POSH Act to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. .In this case, the argument of the Plaintiff Company was that the alleged perpetrator of sexual harassment (Sattvik Mishra) and the alleged victim (Samdish Bhatia) are men, the POSH act does not apply. .Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Preeti Parewa of the Patiala House Court held in the order,"Expression of a victim's trauma or experience is his/her fundamental right which can only be curtained if it is falls under four broad categories i.e. "libel, slander, defamation", "contempt of court", "offends against decency or morality" and "undermines the security or tends to overthrow the State"."Since the present case did not fall in any of the above categories, the Court declined to grant Mishra interim relief..In its order, the Court noted that there are three main principles governing the grant/refusal of injunction: prima facie case; balance of convenience; and irreparable injury..With regard to the prima facie principle, the Court said that since the complaint was filed when Bhatia was not an employee of Scoopwhoop, it cannot be said that the image/reputation of the company was tarnished in any way."A legal right/ injury has to be established before considering any case for grant of injunction which prima-facie appears to be absent in the present case. Further, the alleged posts/contents/ video in question do not mention the name of the plaintiff company nor is obscene derogatory / defamatory prima-facie," the Court said..The Court dismissed WhoopScoop's application. .[READ ORDER]