"Reputation is an extremely delicate thing. It takes years to build, but can be destroyed in an instant." This quote underscores the essence of the recent legal battle between Malabar Gold Limited (Plaintiff) and Shajan Skariah (Respondent), a YouTuber known for his channel "Marunadan Malayali." The Bombay High Court stepped in to address allegations that Skariah's video tarnished the reputation of the Plaintiff. The Court ordered the Respondent to remove a video deemed defamatory towards the Plaintiff.
Case Background
Malabar Gold Limited has filed a suit against Shajan Skariah alleging that a video posted on his YouTube channel contained defamatory statements about the company. The controversy cantered around a video posted by Respondent that criticized the company in connection with the termination of an ex-employee, Arjun Sathyan. According to the Plaintiff, the video contained false and harmful statements about the company's practices and was based solely on Respondent's opinions rather than verified facts.
The Court reviewed a transcript of the video and deemed the statements to be defamatory. The video, which had accumulated over 500,000 views and substantial engagement, was argued to have significantly damaged the company's reputation. Evidence presented included comments from viewers expressing distrust in the company due to the video's allegations-
Plaintiffs' Contentions
- Termination of Former Employee- The Plaintiff contended that the video in question was directly related to the termination of Arjun Sathyan, a former employee of Malabar Gold Limited. According to the Plaintiff, Sathyan's employment was terminated due to various acts of misconduct and misdeeds on his part. This background was crucial to understanding why Respondent's video was fundamentally flawed. The Plaintiff's counsel emphasized that Sathyan's termination was a matter of internal company policy and was based on concrete reasons related to his conduct.
- Lack of Justifiable Basis- The council of the Plaintiff argued that the Respondent, as an outsider with no direct knowledge or involvement in the company's internal matters, lacked the authority or basis to make the statements he did. The video's assertions were not made on the instructions or input of Sathyan, which undermined the credibility and accuracy of the content.
- Defamatory Content and Public Impact- The council of the Plaintiff pointed out that the content of the video was not only damaging but was presented in a way that could mislead the public about the integrity and operations of the Plaintiff. The video had garnered substantial viewership, with over 540,000 views, reflecting its wide circulation and potential to damage the Plaintiff's reputation. The extensive reach of the video amplified the negative impact on the Plaintiff's public image.
- Pattern of Behaviour- The Plaintiff also brought attention to the Respondent's broader pattern of behaviour. It was noted that in another matter, The Delhi High Court had ordered for arrest of Shajan Skariah as his YouTube channel was being used as a platform for making false and defamatory statements about various individuals and entities. This pattern indicated that the defamatory video against Malabar Gold Limited was not an isolated incident but part of a troubling trend of reckless and harmful content dissemination. To strengthen their claims, the council of the Plaintiff cited previous Court orders against Skariah for similar defamatory actions. This included orders from the Delhi High Court and other jurisdictions directing Skariah to remove defamatory content from his channel.
- Urgency for Relief- Given the extensive viewership and the on-going nature of the defamation, the Plaintiff sought urgent relief. The immediate removal of the video and any similar content was necessary to mitigate the on-going damage to the company's reputation. The council emphasized that the Plaintiff's request for an injunction was not just a matter of protecting its name but was crucial to preventing further dissemination of false and harmful statements.
Judgment
The Court observed that the statements made in the video were defamatory and recklessly harmful. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff had established grounds for an interim injunction. It ordered Shajan Skariah, along with anyone acting on his behalf, to immediately remove the offending post and any other similar or identical videos and content from YouTube and other social media platforms. This directive was issued in accordance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. If Respondent fails to comply with the removal order, the Court instructed that the video be taken down by the platform upon notification from the Plaintiff.
Conclusion: Online Defamation vs. Free Speech
The Court's ruling in this case underscores the delicate balance between defamation and free expression. By ordering the removal of Skariah's video, the Court reinforced the importance of safeguarding reputations against unverified and harmful content. This case highlights the judiciary's role in addressing defamatory speech while respecting freedom of expression, ensuring that content creators adhere to standards of accuracy and responsibility. The judgment reflects a commitment to protecting individuals and entities from reputational harm while navigating the evolving landscape of digital media and its legal implications.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.