Archies Greetings & Gifts Ltd. vs Shiv Sena And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 231 Del

JUDGMENT

Sharda Aggarwal, J.

1. This order shall dispose of plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of interim injunction.

2. The plaintiffs M/s Archies Greetings & Gifts Ltd. have instituted the present suit for permanent injunction seeking restraint order against defendants 1 to 11, their members, workers, activists etc. from gheraoing, picketing or obstructing the ingress or egress of the employees, customers and other persons to their various show rooms, shops and outlets in Delhi as detailed in Annexure 'A' to the plaint. The restraint orders are also sought against these defendants from holding any demonstrations or committing acts of violence and vandalism on or around the show rooms and outlets of the plaintiffs in Delhi and also from extending any threats of interfering and obstructing the celebrations of Valentine's Day, and in any manner damaging and destroying the goods, articles and property of the plaintiffs. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for interim injunction. On notice of the suit, the defendants 1, 2, 3 and 10 have contested the application. Defendant No. 12 is the Commissioner of Police. Reset of the defendants have not appeared despite service.

3. Defendant No. 1 is a political party of India, having its office in Mumbai, defendant No. 2 is General Secretary of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 is the President of Delhi Unit of defendant No. 1. Defendants 4 to 9 are stated to be prominent activists of defendant No. 1 and some of the office bearers of its Delhi Unit. Defendant No. 10 is Vishwa Hindu Parishad and defendant No. 11, Bajrang Dal are registered societies.

4. The plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of all kinds of greeting cards, posters, gift items etc. They have 11 exclusive franchises outlets and more than 14 company owned stores/show rooms in Delhi. The plaintiff company decorates its show rooms and outlets on the occasions like Dussehra, Diwali, Christmas and New Year etc. and promotes sale of its products by displaying cards and gift items etc. suitable to the occasion. The Valentine's Day is one of such occasions which falls on 14th February every year. The plaintiffs have averred that even last year defendants 1, 10 and 11 had taken law in their hands and on or around 14th February, 2001 had caused damage and destruction to the goods and property of various show rooms and outlets of the plaintiff company and forced them to pull the shutters down thereby causing loss of crores of rupees to their business and reputation. Reference has been made to the reporting of various newspapers of last year, in order to show that some of the outlets and show rooms of the plaintiff company were attacked by defendant 1, 10 and 11 through their office bearers and activists as consequence of which the police remained on its toes in order to maintain law and order. Reference has also been made to the newspaper reports of the last year in order to show that the Chief of defendant No. 1 had been making public statements and propagating against the celebrations of Valentine's Day being against 'Hindu Culture' and morally polluting the minds of younger generation. It is averred by the plaintiffs that even this year threats are being extended through public statements against the celebrations of Valentine's Day. Specific reference has been made to the reporting in the newspapers dated 20th January, 2002. Based on the newspaper reporting of this year, plaintiffs claim that they have reasonable apprehension that defendants 1, 10 and 11 would indulge in violence and vandalism and would obstruct ingress and egress of the employees and customers to the show rooms of plaintiffs and in the process would cause damage to their articles, goods and properties.

5. Mr. N.N. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that their being threats and warnings from defendants 1 to 11, plaintiffs have reasonable apprehension that on the coming Valentine's Day, activists of defendants would cause obstruction in the ingress and egress of the customers and employees to their various show rooms and outlets and, therefore, they should be restrained from holding demonstrations or committing acts of violence on or around the aforesaid premises. The contention is that defendants do have a right to display their feelings towards a cause and express their opinion, but at the same time, they can not be allowed to exercise their rights so as to cause harm and prejudice the exercise of rights of another. No one can be allowed to interfere in the trade and business activities of the plaintiffs. Reliance in this respect is placed on Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. T.M. Nagarajan and Ors., 1988 (15) DRJ 212, Patel Oil Mills v. Relaxo Rubber and Allied Industries Employees Union and Ors., and Asian Hotels Limited v. Asian Hotels Employees Union and Ors., 2000 1 AD (Delhi) 199. All these cases relate to industrial disputes between the Management and workmen. Under the industrial law, demonstrations, gheraos and such like activities are the means and tools through which workers ventilate their grievances against the Management. Such activities are considered to be pieceful mechanism to display group feelings towards a cause and for redressal of their grievances. In such cases, a balancing scale has to be applied so that the freedom enjoyed by the trade union activists is restricted only to the extent needed to preserve the proper and efficient functioning of the business of the management. These cases as such have no bearing on the facts of the present case.

6. Shri Alok Kumar, counsel for defendant No. 10 contends that plaint does not disclose any cause of action against defendant No. 10. No involvement of Vishwa Hindu Parishad has been shown. No document showing its involvement in any such action has been placed on record. The learned counsel has taken me through, the plaint and application where no averment has been made specifically against defendant No. 10. Generally it is alleged that defendants 1 to 11 have even this year issued various open threats and warnings through various leading newspapers thereby threatening general public and the plaintiff company not to indulge in any promotional activities relating to Valentine's Day. Learned counsel referred to the newspaper reporting of the last year as well as of the current year. But none of the reports refer to any threats or warning extended on behalf of defendant No. 10. It is only in one newspaper report of 15th February, 2001 where VHP's name appears in reference to the activities of Sankriti Raksha described as a group of ABVP, VHP and other Sangh Pariwar affiliates in Jabalpur. Learned counsel has categorically stated that VHP has no concern with Sankriti Raksha. It is contended that even otherwise defendant No. 10 had never threatened or used any unlawful means to propagate its views. It is urged that in a free and democratic country, defendant has a right to express its vies about undesirability of Valentine's Day. It is asserted that VHP has never used any force, intimidation or other coercive and unlawful methods to enforce its views upon any person nor they have any intention to do so in future. Plaintiffs in fact have failed to make out a prima facie case for interim injunction against defendant No. 10.

contends that no threat was extended to plaintiffs by defendant No. 3 as President of Delhi Unit of Shiv Sena. His name nowhere appears in the newspaper reporting. On the contrary, the name of Abhimanyu Gulati, Deputy Chief of Delhi Unit of Shiv Sena finds reference in the newspaper reporting dated 20th January, 2002, but has not been made a party to the suit. The newspaper reporting of 20th January, 2002 does not show that any threat or warning was extended against the purchase of cards etc. from the plaintiff's show rooms and outlets. Even otherwise, it was only an expression of opinion which was never forced upon any person nor there was any intention to indulge into any violence or vandalism. As such, there is no apprehension of any threat to the plaintiffs from defendant No. 3.

7. On behalf of defendants 1 and 2 Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate contends that the plaintiffs have no case for grant of interim injunction. Firstly, it is contended that the plaintiff's whole case is based on newspaper reporting and no judicial notice of facts in news items can be taken being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence. Reliance in this respect is placed on the Supreme Court decisions Laxmi Raj Shetty and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, , State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, and Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam and Ors., . It is contended that there is no document apart from the newspaper reporting supporting the allegations made in the plaint. The contention is that there is no specific allegation in the plaint against defendants 1 and 2. There is a general allegation that defendants 1 to 11 jointly and severally threatened the plaintiffs and its franchises to desist from celebrating the Valentine's Day. It is argued that even if newspapers are considered and taken at their face value, the reports of the last year are too remote to create a reasonable apprehension of any threat to the plaintiffs to desist from celebrating the ensuing Valentine's Day.

8. Coming to the newspaper reports of the current year, plaintiffs have placed on record the newspaper reporting of "Indian Express" dated 20th January, 2002 and a report from the newspaper "Times of India". In the reporting of 20th January, 2002, Abhimanyu Gulati, Deputy Chief of Delhi Unit of defendant No. 1 purportedly extended some threats and warnings against the celebrations of coming Valentine's Day saying that "Shiv Sena will never tolerate such a nude Youth Revolution". Whole reading of this reporting shows that it was basically a warning to the multi-nationals and hotels and restaurants organising the Valentine's Day parties. There is no reference to the plaintiff company at any place in the entire report and, therefore, it cannot be said that on the basis of this report, any threat or warning was held out to the plaintiffs from carrying on its business in any manner from its outlets and show rooms. At the end of the report, Gulati has assured that they never asserted their ideas forcibly and their activities would be limited to sticking posters and distributing pamphlets. To my mind, there is no imminent threat or warning to the plaintiff company that on Valentine's Day, defendants would obstruct the carrying on of the business of the plaintiffs from their outlets and show rooms. The defendants can express their views and hold their own opinion with respect to Valentine's Day celebrations, so long they remain within the reasonable restrictions imposed on them and do not enforce their ideas on others by illegal means. Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution guarantees to all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. Supreme Court in , S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and Ors., described "freedom of speech and expression of opinion" as under:

"The framework of our Constitution differs from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Articles 19(1)(a) of our Constitution guarantees to all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. The freedom of expression means the right to express one's opinion by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture or in any other manner. It would thus include the freedom of communication and the right to propagate or publish opinion. The communication of ideas could be made through any medium, newspaper, magazine or movie. But this right is subject to reasonable restrictions on grounds set out under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The reasonable limitations can be put in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The Framers deemed it essential to permit imposition of reasonable restrictions in the larger interests of the community and country. they intended to strike a proper balance between the liberty guaranteed and the social interests specified under Article 19(2)."

The Supreme Court further held as under :

"In democracy it is not necessary that everyone should sing the same song.

Freedom of expression is the rule and it is generally taken of granted. Everyone has a fundamental right to form his own opinion on any issue of general concern. He can form and inform by any legitimate means."

9. Defendant No. 1 is a responsible political party and it is expected that in expressing and propagating their views they would abide by law and will not adopt illegal means. In fact, during the course of arguments in response to a question put by the Court, Mr. Nayyar stated that defendant No. 1 had no intention or plan of committing any act of which apprehension is expressed by the plaintiffs.

10. The plaintiffs gave a chart of some past events showing that criminal cases were registered against some activists or office bearers of defendants No. 1 and 3 for indulging in illegal activities, as digging up Ferozshah Kotla Ground in opposition to the tour of Pakistan Cricket Team, stoning and violent demonstrations at the Beauty Parlour run by Manoj Prabhakar's wife etc. Even these incidents for which specific criminal cases were registered against some person do not give the plaintiffs a reasonable apprehension that defendants would indulge in violent activities and cause damage to their property and business on Valentine's Day. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar contends that even though there are averments made in the plaint that last year activists of defendants had caused obstruction to the ingress and egress of the customers and employees to their show rooms and had caused damage running into crores of rupees, but no criminal or civil proceedings have been initiated in that respect. The plaintiffs did not lodge any FIR for any such alleged activity on or before the Valentine Day last year. The learned counsel further contends that in fact plaintiffs under the garb of seeking police protection and security have filed the present suit for injunction against defendants 1 to 11. According to plaintiff's own averments, even last year on account of some incidents on the occasion of Valentine Day, the police had come in action to protect the life and property of public including the plaintiffs. Even one of the newspaper reporting of the last year mentioned that SHO of Model Town Police Station had offered to give protection to the Archies Show rooms located in his area. It is the duty of the police to maintain law and order in the city and I see no reason why police will not take appropriate steps to maintain the same on the ensuing Valentine's Day and to provide protection to the plaintiffs, if need by.

11. The plaintiffs who seek injunction must establish the averred facts by placing the necessary material on record. In this case, it is for the plaintiffs to make out a prima facie case by showing that the defendants have extended and held out such threats and warnings which has given rise to a reasonable apprehension in their minds that the defendants would obstruct the carrying on the their business and cause damage and destruction of their goods at their outlets in Delhi on the ensuing Valentine's Day. However, the plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima facie case for the grant of interim injunction. The application is accordingly dismissed.

12. It is, however, made clear that my expression of opinion in this order would have no reflection on the merits of the case.

13. Copy of the order be given dusty to the parties.