Reuters republishes investigative report on hacking after Delhi Court relief

Reuters on Thursday republished an investigative story on the alleged hacking activities of an Indian firm after a Delhi Court rejected an interim injunction application against the article.

The article had earlier been removed from its website by Reuters in compliance with an order passed by a Rohini Court on December 4 in 2023 in a defamation suit filed by one Vinay Pandey, the President of Appin Association of Training Center, in 2022.

The investigative report said a company named Appin had started as a small Indian educational startup but went on to hack “on an industrial scale, stealing data from political leaders, international executives, prominent attorneys and more”.

The report described Appin as a “hack-for-hire powerhouse”.

Additional District Judge Rakesh Kumar Singh, who had earlier ordered temporary “withdrawal of the content” and asked Google to deindex the article, in the order passed on October 3 found no justification to issue an interim injunction against publication of articles or published articles in the matter.

The Court said Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution protect liberty of thought of a person and same would not just include expression of thought but also keeping of a thought in mind.

“General public will be able to take proper decision when every material is made available for their consumption and it is then for them to take a decision as to what thought they want to keep in their mind. If a court issues injunction, the same may have repercussion on the citizen of India as they will not be able to properly choose a thought to keep in mind,” the Court observed.

It added that while there may be some extreme cases in which certain information may be excluded, the Court would be required to evaluate the material and see if the same would be detrimental to the thought process of Indian citizen or that such an information has no concern at all with the general public. 

While granting relief to Reuters, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited and Ors v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited which said the courts should not grant ex-parte injunctions except in exceptional cases where the defence advanced by the respondent would undoubtedly fail at trial.

The judge analysed the article and noted that it gives “a hint” about unethical hacking and involvement of certain persons in the same. 

It also found that the instances mentioned in the article are largely based on occurrences that took place several years ago. In contrast, it found that plaintiff-association came into being only in 2022 and was registered after the institution of the suit.

The other plaintiffs - students, became party to the suit in 2024 and none of them claim to have studied at the institute at the time period covered by the article.

“In such circumstances, it will be hard to accept that the plaintiffs have any concern with the past events and can plead any loss on account of publication of past event whether as an opinion or as a news. Defendants are projecting that they have properly verified the available material and have published the article simply for the dissemination of information amongst public without any fault of maligning another person or entity. This court is of the view that in such circumstances, a proper opportunity needs to be given to the defendant to justify their cause. Simply because a plaintiff has filed a suit, we cannot issue injunction against freedom of press,” it Court said.

It further opined that though there was dispute on whether the journalists had followed the ethical code or given the opponents a chance to clarify their stand, these points can be decided only after recording of evidence.

The Court refused to accept the association’s argument that it was continuing the legacy of the earlier entity Appin. It read a copy of affidavit filed before the Registrar of Trademarks and found that the association has stated that it started work only in 2022.

The Court also refused to rely on a copy of assignment deed filed by the plaintiff-association to claim that the earlier entity had assigned the legacy to it. It said the document had not been properly brought on record.

Thus, the Court rejected the interim injunction application. Pertinently, Reuters also assured the Court that it would add a clarificatory message to protect the reputation of students in the case.

“In such circumstances, binding such defendants with the assurances so given, it is held that as at present, the plaintiff has not been able to show any prima facie case to make interference in the process of journalism,” the judge ruled.

Reuters had earlier moved the Delhi High Court against the judge’s order for removal of the article.

No effective order except issuance of notice was passed in the appeal and it continues to remain pending. 

[Read Order]