New Delhi, Feb 18: The Delhi High Court on Friday restrained historian Dr. Audrey Truschke and other persons from publishing any defamatory material against historian Dr. Vikram Sampath against him till April 1 on Twitter as well as other online or offline platforms.

 

 

 

Passing an ad-interim order, Justice Amit Bansal also restrained the defendants from publishing the letter dated February 11 addressed to the Royal Historical Society in London raising serious allegations of plagiarism against Sampath, till the next date of hearing.

 

 

 

"Till the next date of hearing, defendants 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are restrained from publishing the letter or any other defamatory material concerning the plaintiff in any forum or Twitter as well as any other online or offline platforms," the Court ordered.

 

 

The Court was hearing a suit filed by Sampath against Audrey Truschke and other persons over a letter sent by them to the Royal Historical Society raising allegations of plagiarism against him concerning a journal publication and his two-volume biography of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and some alleged defamatory tweets made pursuant thereto.

 

 

The suit stated that Historian Audrey Truschke and other persons namely Ananya Chakravarti and Rohit Chopra wrote the letter dated February 11 to the Royal Historical Society in London raising serious allegations of plagiarism.

 

 

It has been stated in the suit that a perusal of the letter will show that the crux of the allegation made against Sampath is that in an essay written for the Journal, he had plagiarized from an essay written by one Vinayak Chaturvedi.

 

 

Furthermore, the suit also referred to some alleged defamatory tweets made by Abhishek Baxi and Ashok Swain alleging that the same was posted with a mala fide intent to hit Sampath's professional reputation not only at the national level but also across the whole world.

 

 

During the hearing today, Advocate Raghav Awasthi appearing for Sampath submitted that he had adequately cited and gave due credits to the authors and therefore, Sampath cannot be held liable for plagiarism.

 

 

He argued that Dr. Jhanki Bhakhle had even written a review of Sampath's book in question and had made no grievance of plagiarism. Awasthi also argued that the publication of the said letter on various social media platforms including Twitter was causing grave harm to his reputation as a known academic.

 

 

"Plaintiff has taken me through various extracts quoted in the letter to show that he has given due credits and has footnoted the said works. It is further averred that based on the publication of the letter on Twitter, defamatory tweets are being posted," the Court noted.

 

 

It added "In my view plaintiff has made prima facie case for ad interim the continued publication of said letter has been causing considerable damage to plaintiff's reputation and career. Balance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiff."

 

 

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appearing for Twitter submitted before the Court that was only an intermediary and that if URLs are provided, the same may be taken down by the microblogging site. 

The Court however clarified that it wasn't passing any specific directions to Twitter at the interim stage. The Court issued a summons in the suit and posted the matter for further hearing on April 1.

 

 

The suit sought a decree of permanent injunction against the aforementioned defendants to cease the publication of Letter or any other defamatory material. The suit also sought damage of Rs. 2 crores from the said defendants.

 

 

The suit was also accompanied by an application seeking ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the said defendants from publishing the Letter or any other defamatory material on Twitter or any other online or offline platforms during the pendency of the suit. It also sought an ad-interim ex-parte injunction directing Twitter to cease publication of the allegedly defamatory tweets in question.