contents of the said two articles, which were originally published on the Defendant No.1’s digital/electronic portal www.thequint.com, have now been picked up by another platform by the name www.newsdogapp.com and the same are being attributed to Defendant No.1. The content on the said app www.newsdogapp.com is identical to the articles, which were published on the Defendant No.1’s website www.thequint.com and in fact, attributes the source as being www.thequint.com. Printouts of the same have been handed over to the Court and to ld. counsel for the Defendants. 6. The matter was initially passed over in order to enable the Defendants to seek instructions. Ld. counsel for the Defendants submits that the impugned articles have already been taken down from the portal www.thequint.com and whenever the Plaintiff has pointed out any other digital/electronic platform or website where the said articles have been reproduced, the Defendants have cooperated with the Plaintiff for pulling the same down. 7. The Defendants having been the original source of the said two publications and having already pulled down the said articles pursuant to the proceedings of this Court, the republication of the same, attributing it to any of the Defendants, would not be permissible. The allegations having been made as part of #MeToo campaign and the three individuals having chosen to remain anonymous and the publisher of the articles having already agreed to pull down the said two articles, further re-publication of the same is liable to be restrained. The campaign also ought not to become an unbridled and unending campaign against an individual with other electronic/digital portals or platforms picking up the pulled down content through archived material. The #MeToo campaign cannot become a `Sullying #UToo’ campaign CS (OS) 642/2018 Page 4 of 6