Delhi High Court
Alok Kumar Brara vs Sarah Jane & Ors on 13 May, 2019
$~16.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 199/2018 & IA No.5866/2018 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC).
ALOK KUMAR BRARA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Pavan Duggal, Adv.
versus
SARAH JANE & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 13.05.2019
1. The plaintiff Alok Kumar Brara, resident of New Delhi, has instituted
this suit against Sarah Jane, resident of California, USA, and Twitter Inc.,
USA, pleading (i) that the plaintiff is a publisher and founder/Chief
Executive Officer of India Infrastructure Publishing; (ii) that the name and
photograph of the plaintiff constitutes the original literary and photographic
work, with the plaintiff as the owner of the copyright therein; (iii) that the
plaintiff‟s attention was drawn to certain tweets tweeted from a Twitter
handle @SarahJa90007013; (iv) that a perusal of the said Twitter account
showed that the said account holder had joined Twitter only in February,
2018; (v) the said tweets were/are defamatory, derogatory and abusive of the
plaintiff; (vi) the plaintiff, on 23rd March, 2018 reported offensive tweets
through the reporting forms available on the platform of the defendant no.2
Twitter Inc.; (vii) a second take down notice was issued on 26th March,
2018; (viii) the defendant no.2 rejected the take down request made by the
plaintiff without providing any valid or reasonable explanation; (ix) that the
defendant no.1 Twitter handle has been used only for the purpose of
publishing tweets defamatory and derogatory to the plaintiff; (x) the said
tweets call the plaintiff "a lecherous pest", "in the garb of father figure,
harassing and coercing the employees into sex", "destroying girls, many as
old as his own daughter" and call for an investigation into the conduct of the
plaintiff (though the plaintiff, in the plaint has given other details also of the
said tweets but for the present purpose need is not felt to record the same);
(xi) that the defendant no.1 Twitter handle is being used only for the purpose
of tarnishing the impeccable reputation, goodwill and standing of the
plaintiff; (xii) on 22nd April, 2018, the plaintiff learnt of other tweets
published on the defendant no.1 Twitter handle, also defaming the plaintiff;
(xiii) that when one goes to the Twitter page of the defendant no.1, the same
does not have any identity of Sarah Jane; (xiv) the photographs of the
plaintiff have also been published in the tweet; (xv) what is claimed in the
Twitter handle is false; (xvi) the said tweets violate the copyright and other
proprietary rights of the plaintiff and also amount to defamation and identity
theft of the plaintiff; (xvii) that the said tweets are cause irreparable loss and
injury to the plaintiff; (xviii) that the Twitter page by the name of Sarah Jane
and the associated Twitter handle of the defendant no.1 are forged and
fabricated and manipulated; (xix) that there is no real person by the name of
Sarah Jane; (xx) the defendant no.2 Twitter Inc. is an intermediary within
the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000;
(xxi) that the defendant no.2, under the Indian Information Technology
(Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2011, is obligated to observe due diligence;
(xxii) that though the plaintiff has called upon the defendant no.2 to take
down the offending tweets, but the defendant no.2 has not taken any action;
and, (xxiii) the defendant no.2 Twitter Inc. is also liable to disclose the
identity of the defendant no.1.
2. The plaintiff has thus claimed the reliefs of, (i) perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants from defaming the plaintiff and from infringing
the copyright of the plaintiff; (ii) mandatory injunction directing the
defendants to take down the Twitter page and remove the offending tweets
and to disclose the identity of the defendant no.1 Twitter handle or any other
Twitter handle from which defamatory tweets have been tweeted; and, (iii)
for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs.2,05,00,000/-.
3. The suit came up first before this Court on 1st May, 2018 and was
adjourned from time to time as requisite court fees had not been paid.
Finally on 12th December, 2018 summons of the suit were ordered to be
issued and the defendant no.2 Twitter Inc. directed to furnish to this Court in
a sealed cover the particulars available with it of the natural person behind
the defendant no.1 Twitter handle and restrained from deleting the electronic
records of the said twitter account, and to, within 48 hours of service of the
order, suspend the defendant no.1 Twitter account.
4. The counsel for the plaintiff on 18th March, 2019 informed that the
defendant no.1 Twitter account had been suspended. Therefrom service of
the defendant no.1 was deemed to have been completed. However none
appeared for either of the two defendants despite service.
5. It was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff on 18 th March, 2019,
why the suit should not be disposed of making absolute the order dated 12 th
December, 2018.
6. The counsel for the plaintiff, on 18th March, 2019 stated that the
plaintiff needed to find the identity of the person who was manning the
subject account.
7. However the counsel for the plaintiff was informed that even upon
particulars of the person behind the Twitter account being
disclosed/furnished, it generally does not lead to identity of the person. The
counsel for the plaintiff on 18th March, 2019 sought time to consider and
take instructions.
8. Thereafter 16th April, 2019 the counsel for the plaintiff again sought
adjournment on the same grounds.
9. Today, the counsel for the plaintiff states that the suit be disposed of
in terms of the order dated 12th December, 2018.
10. Though the suit raises issues of diverse implication but in the facts of
the present case, it is not deemed necessary to keep the suit pending
inasmuch as the plaintiff is not seeking any other relief except for
suspension of the defendant no.1 Twitter account.
11. The suit is thus disposed of directing the defendant no.2 Twitter Inc.,
USA to make inoperative and deactivate the Twitter account
@SarahJa90007013.
12. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be drawn up.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
MAY 13, 2019
„pp‟..
