Delhi High Court
Mehul Choksi vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 August, 2020
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 28.08.2020
+ W.P.(C) 5677/2020 & CM 20540/2020
MEHUL CHOKSI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.Naman
Joshi, Mr.Tarun Singla,
Mr.Mudit Jain, Mr.Ashul
Aggarwal, Ms.Barkha Rastogi,
Mr.Shailesh Pandey, Mr.Kunal
Srivastava, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr.Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with
Mr.R.V.Prabhat, Mr.Amit
Gupta, Mr. Sahaj Garg
Mr.K.R.Digpaul, Advs. for R- 1.
Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr.
Adv., Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr.
Adv., with Mr. Saikrishna
Rajagopal, Mr.Thomas George,
Mr.Sidharth Chopra, Ms.Tanvi
Sinha, Ms.Savni Endlaw,
Mr.Manas Gaur, Ms.Namisha
Chadha, Ms.Chanan Parwani,
Ms.Pritha Suri, Advs. for R-2-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
WP(C) No.5677/2020 Page 1
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been held by video conferencing.
2. This petition has been filed praying for the following
reliefs:
"A. Issue an appropriate writ directing the
Respondent No.1 to take steps to regulate the
Respondent Nos. 2 and/or 3 insofar as release of
content having possibly prejudicial effect on
pending investigations and trials is concerned
and ensure that no prejudice is caused to accused
persons pending investigation and/or trial;
B. Issue an appropriate writ directing the
Respondent Nos. 2 and/or 3 to conduct a pre-
screening of the Documentary titled "Bad Boy
Billionaires - India" for this Hon'ble Court and the
counsels for the Petitioner;
C. Issue an appropriate writ directing the
Respondent Nos. 2 and/or 3 to not release the
episode/portion of the Documentary "Bad Boy
Billionaires - India" insofar as it relates to the
Petitioner or is prejudicial to the rights of the
Petitioner or mentions the Petitioner during
the pendency of investigations and/or trials against
the Petitioner, assuming there is any such
episode/portion;
D. Alternatively, issue an appropriate writ
directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and/or 3 to
postpone the release of the episode/portion of
the Documentary "Bad Boy Billionaires - India"
insofar as it relates to the Petitioner or mentions him
or is prejudicial to the Petitioner, assuming
there is any such episode/portion, to a date when
WP(C) No.5677/2020 Page 2
the investigations and trials against the
Petitioner have concluded."
3. As far as prayer 'A' in the petition is concerned, the
learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and
3 have brought to my notice the order dated 08.02.2019 passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.11164/2018
titled Justice for Rights Foundation vs. Union of India and the
order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in WP(C) No.7123/2018 titled Nikhil Bhalla vs. Union
of India & Ors., to submit that a similar prayer has earlier been
refused by the Division Benches of this Court.
4. The learned ASG has also submitted that the respondents
maintain their stand that presently there is no regulation of the
content on the OTT platforms by the Ministry of Electronics
and Information Technology (MEITY).
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner
sought to distinguish the above orders by contending that they
were passed in public interest litigations and in any case, did
not raise specific issue of infringement of rights under Article
21 of the Constitution of India for a fair trial.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels. In Justice for Rights Foundation (supra), the
Division Bench of this Court held as under:
WP(C) No.5677/2020 Page 3
"5. Accordingly, it is stated that no general power
for regulation or material in the internet platform is
available. But if the internet platform is misused for
carrying information or material which are not
permissible under law then the provisions of the
Information Technology Act provides for deterrent
action to be taken and as and when complaints are
received, the statutory competent authority takes
action in the matter.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid, namely, the
provisions of the Information and Technology Act
and the Rules framed thereunder and, particularly,
the provision provided in the Sections as detailed
hereinabove, we are of the considered view that in a
public interest litigation, this Court cannot issue a
mandamus for framing general guidelines or
provisions when there are stringent provisions
already in place under the Information and
Technology Act. In case the petitioner feels that any
of the contents exhibited or transmitted by the
organizations detailed in the writ petition violates
the statutory provisions of the Information and
Technology Act or the Rule and contains prohibitory
material as is detailed therein, the petitioner can
very well make a complaint under the aforesaid
provision to the statutory authority and we are
hopeful that the authorities shall look into the
matter.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see
no reason to issue any mandamus for bringing into
place any guidelines or statutory regulation for the
WP(C) No.5677/2020 Page 4
said purpose when the Information and Technology
Act itself provide for enough procedural safeguards
for taking action in the event of any prohibited act
being undertaken by the broadcasters or
organizations in the internet/online platform."
7. The above view was followed by another Division Bench
of this Court in Nikhil Bhalla (supra) observing as under:
"3. The claim in the proceedings is identical to what
was sought in Justice For Rights(supra). In these
circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that a
different view cannot be taken."
8. In view of the above orders of the Division Benches of
this Court and being bound by the same, prayer 'A' as sought in
the present petition, cannot be granted.
9. As far as prayers 'B' to 'D' are concerned, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the
documentary as sought to be released by the respondent nos.2
and 3 would prejudicially affect the trial that is pending against
the petitioner. This is vehemently opposed by the learned
senior counsels appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3, who
submit that the documentary in question is based on matters
which are in any case being widely debated in media and would
in no manner prejudice the pending trial.
WP(C) No.5677/2020 Page 5
10. Both sides have further argued on pre-censorship and
freedom of speech and expression and the balance to be struck
between these concepts.
11. I am intentionally not referring to the various judgments
and submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties in
this regard as in my opinion, a writ for enforcement of a private
right in this manner cannot be maintained. Whether the
offending documentary proposed to be telecast by the
respondent no. 2 and 3 can cause any prejudice to the petitioner
in the pending trial or not and whether it is based on
information already in public domain, et cetera, are questions
that are best to be left to be determined by a civil court. The
remedy of the petitioner, if any, would be in form of a civil suit
as what is being alleged by the petitioner is an infringement of
his private right by a private body.
12. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed,
leaving it open to the petitioner to take appropriate legal
remedies, if so advised, in accordance with law.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
AUGUST 28, 2020
RN
WP(C) No.5677/2020 Page 6
