A Devanahalli court in Karnatka in, Air Asia (India) Ltd v. Sri. Gaurav Taneja dismissed a petition filed by AirAsia against Whistleblower Gaurav Taneja for defaming the company. The court stated that material facts were suppressed by AirAsia and that Gaurav Taneja acted as a responsible pilot to take up the safety issues(called defamation by the company) on social media.
Facts
A famous Youtuber and Pilot Gaurav Taneja recently turned a whistleblower and exposed the safety lapses on the part of AirAsia. He exposed the ill-doings of the company on his Youtube Channel whereafter DGCA took cognizance of the matter and two employees were suspended. Air Asia approached the court stating that Gaurav has breached the Employment Contract/Appointment Letter dated 01.02.2019 as well as the nondisclosure agreement and the Group Communication Policy. Air Asia also reported misconduct on part of the respondent and subsequently dismissed him from services. For the aforementioned reasons, the plaintiff felt that it has tarnished the image of the company and are defamatory in nature.
Defendant’s Objection
The Counsel for Mr. Taneja stated that the petition was non-maintainable and the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts pertaining to the case and has approached the Hon’ble Court with unclean hands. The plaintiff, it was stated, has suppressed the fact that two members of the company were suspended by DGCA post the issues raised by Mr. Taneja. It was also contended that none of the matter that was put on social media was defamatory or included things that were confidential in nature. Taneja also pointed out certain anomalies in the flight operations undertaken by the plaintiff company, which would lead to jeopardizing the safety of the passengers. The claims of misconduct were also rebutted by the defendant.
Court’s Order
The Court perused the contentions of the parties. The court was irked by the fact that the plaintiffs did not disclose issues material to the case. The fact that DGCA had suspended two officers was material to the case and thus the averments of the plaintiff that they have been defamed hold no water as the defendant who exposed the company’s wrongdoing acted in all honesty. The defendant for the purpose of public safety informed the same the plaintiff company when they failed to take proper action, he lodged a written complaint. The authority conducted an inquiry and hold the officials of the plaintiff company guilty. The court while dismissing the petition stated that “The plaintiff company suppressing this aspect moved an application and obtained an order of injunction. This is due to silencing the defendant from raising the safety issues and to minimize the fall out of the suspension order of the DGCA. It means, what the defendant published in social media is the truth and it was properly enquired by the authority. Wherefore, it is not confidential information.”
Picture Source :
