Previous 5 / 5 Next

17. Accordingly, the suit is disposed of passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff, and against the defendant no.1, in terms of prayer paragraph 45 ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the plaint dated 16th September, 2019 read with above and leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn up. No costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J FEBRUARY 11, 2020 ‘gsr’.. CS(OS) 483/2019 Page 4 of 5

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Gupta v. Herdsceneand

Case Law

Country

India

Country Location

Latitude: 23.078537445745496

Longitude: 78.60363571015989

Country Location (linked Case Law): India

Decision Date: Feb 11, 2020

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Access Restriction/Content Regulation/Information Control

Keywords

Anonymity
Content Moderation
Defamation / Reputation

Judicial Body: First Instance Court

Court Name: Delhi High Court

Case Number: CS (OS) 483/2019

Case Summary: The Delhi High Court in India initially ordered Instagram and search engines to remove anonymous #MeToo allegations of sexual harrassment against artist Subodh Gupta which appeared on an Instagram handle called Herdsceneand. Gupta filed a defamation suit against Herdsceneand arguing that his reputation had been damaged due to the allegations in the post and, as a result, art galleries were refusing to display his artworks. Herdsceneand argued that disclosing the identity of its administrator(s) would cause it ‘harm for which sufficient protection was not available in the legal system’. Further, it contended that victims of the sexual harassment in such #MeToo cases face a large number of issues and thus they must be permitted to stay anonymous. Although the Court allowed the administrator of Herdsceneand to maintain its anonymity, it ultimately dismissed the case in favour of Gupta after he reached an agreement with Herdsceneand to remove the post and express regret for posting it.

Case Significance: The case had a mixed outcome on the freedom of expression. It expanded expression as it allowed the administrator of the whistleblowing platform Herdsceneand to remain anonymous. However, it also contracted expression in a number of ways. Firstly, it granted an ex-parte order akin to a right to be forgotten order in favour of the plaintiff on the first date of hearing. This order and observation are bound to have negative (albeit unquantifiable) implications in other defamation cases where plaintiffs may use this precedent to gag speech even while a trial is ongoing. Secondly, by observing that granting anonymity to speakers was antithetical to the concept of judicial fairness, it jeopardised a crucial aspect of the freedom of expression that is the right to express anonymously especially in sensitive cases. Lastly, given that the final outcome of the case was that Herdsceneand had to remove the post and express regret, the case would likely have a discouraging effect on victims of sexual harassment and for the health of the #MeToo movement in India in general.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

As a decision of a single-judge bench of Delhi High Court, the decision is binding on all authorities and lower courts in New Delhi.

Related Caselaw (self)

Related Analysis

Case Law on Content Moderation and Freedom of Expression

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Jul 19, 2024

Primary Documents

Final Order dated February 11, 2020
Other
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Gupta v. Herdsceneand

Primary Documents

Notifications