“Expression of a victim's trauma or experience is his/her fundamental right which can only be curtailed if it falls under four broad categories i.e. 'libel, slander, defamation', 'contempt of court', 'offends against decency or morality', and 'undermines the security or tends to overthrow the State'.”Administrative Civil Judge Preeti Parewa, Patiala House Court
Observing that expression of trauma is a fundamental right, a Delhi court on Monday, 14 February, refused to grant an interim injunction stopping Samdish Bhatia, former ‘Unscripted’ anchor at ScoopWhoop, from talking about his sexual harassment complaint.
In the months after announcing his exit from the ‘Unscripted’ in October 2021, Bhatia levelled allegations of sexual harassment and assault against ScoopWhoop’s co-founder and the then CEO Sattvik Mishra.
Mishra, however, on his part, has denied the allegations. He has also accused Bhatia of fabricating the story in an attempt to extort Rs 7 crore from him.
In their latest instant application, WhoopScoop Media Private Limited – a spin-off of ScoopWhoop – had sought a grant of temporary injunction against the defendants – defendant number 1 being Bhatia and defendant number 2 being Mishra himself.
The application had sought an interim injunction “restraining the defendants, their associates, agents, representatives, correspondents, officers, employees and/ or any other person, entity, in print or electronics media or on social media or via internet or otherwise” from writing, speaking, creating or publishing any content pertaining to any allegation against each other or any person linked to the organisation, in connection with the sexual-harassment case.
WHY DID THE COURT REJECT THE PLEA FOR INJUNCTION?
Dismissing WhoopScoop’s plea for temporary injunction, the court on 14 February further pointed out that neither was the complaint (which is presently subjudice with the Grievance Committee constituted under the POSH Act) filed before WhoopScoop, nor was Bhatia employed with WhoopScoop.
Bhatia was an anchor with ‘Unscripted’ while it was primarily with ScoopWhoop, not WhoopScoop.
“Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiff company has been in any way "injured" with the acts of the defendant no 1 (Bhatia)," the court added.
The court also emphasised that the fundamental right of “expression of a victim’s trauma or experience” can only be curtailed if it falls under the following four broad categories:
Libel, slander, defamation
Contempt of court
Offends against decency or morality
Undermines the security or tends to overthrow the State
“In the present case, the alleged posts do not fall in any of the above-said category and thus, in the opinion of this court, the relief as sought by way of instant application cannot be granted at this stage.”Delhi court
MORE DETAILS
In November 2021, Bhatia had moved court, filing a case against Mishra, under sections 377 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, and against Mishra’s wife Sriparna Tikekar for abetment.
However, days after Bhatia took to Instagram on 14 January to allege an assault during his time at ScoopWhoop, WhoopScoop Media Private Limited moved court seeking injunctions on Bhatia to prevent him from making his allegations public.
Prior to 14 February, the Patiala House Court had also refused the injunction on 22 January.
Bhatia's case against Mishra is slated for further hearing on 24 February. Meanwhile the civil suit will be next heard on 30 March.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)