Reuters on Thursday republished a news story it had earlier published in 2022 on the alleged hacking activities of an Indian firm, after the Rohini court in Delhi recently rejected an interim injunction application against the article.
The story had been removed from Reuters website in compliance with an order passed by a Rohini Court on December 4, 2023 in a defamation suit filed by one Vinay Pandey, President of Appin Association of Training Center in 2022.
The investigative report alleged that 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. It further called Appin 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, observed on October 3 that it did not find any justification to issue an interim injunction against the publication or published articles.
While granting relief to Reuters, the judge observed that Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution protected the liberty of thought of a person and the same would not just include the expression of thought, but also a thought in mind.
It noted that the general public would only be able to make a proper decision when every material was made available for their consumption. It was for them to decide as to what thought they want to keep in their minds.
A court issuing an injunction may have repercussions on the citizens of India as they would not be able to properly choose a thought to keep in mind, noted the ADJ.
He said 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 citizens or that such information has no concern at all with the general public.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited and Ors vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, in which, the Apex Court observed that the courts should not grant ex-parte injunctions except in exceptional cases where the defence advanced by the respondent would undoubtedly fail at trial.
After perusing the article, the ADJ said it gaves “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.
The court said that in such circumstances, it would 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 news.
The defendants were projecting that they have properly verified the available material and published the article simply for the dissemination of information among the public without any fault of maligning another person or entity.
In such circumstances, a proper opportunity should be given to the defendant to justify their cause. Simply because a plaintiff has filed a suit, the court cannot issue injunction against the freedom of press, it added.
It further opined that though there was a 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 ADJ refused to accept the association’s argument that it was continuing the legacy of the earlier entity Appin. It read a copy of the affidavit filed before the Registrar of Trademarks and found that the association has stated that it started work only in 2022.
The court further rejected the copy of the assignment deed filed by the plaintiff-association to claim that the earlier entity had assigned the legacy to it, noting that the document had not been properly brought on record.
Reuters also assured the Rohini court that it would add a clarificatory message to protect the reputation of students in the case.
The ADJ ruled that in such circumstances, binding such defendants with the assurances so given, at present, the plaintiff has not been able to show any prima facie case to make interference in the process of journalism.
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 has remained pending with the High Court till date.