Bombay High Court: X Ordered to Remove Defamatory Serum Institute Content

• The Bombay High Court recently ordered X Corp to remove a video uploaded by influencer Yohan Tengra, which was deemed defamatory towards Serum Institute of India and its CEO Adar Poonawalla.
• The video violated a prior injunction issued in a ₹100-crore defamation suit filed by Serum Institute and Poonawalla.
• The court also issued a show-cause notice for contempt against Tengra and three others for deliberately disobeying the earlier injunction.
• Justice Gauri Godse had previously ruled against issuing blanket censorship orders to social media intermediaries, clarifying that Section 79 of the IT Act does not make them 'super-censors'.
• This case highlights the judiciary's power to enforce specific content removal orders while balancing intermediary liability with freedom of expression.

This ruling, which includes the Adar Poonawalla defamation order, reinforces the judiciary's ability to compel platforms like X Corp to act when content is found to violate existing legal directives.

The Bombay High Court recently mandated social media platform X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, to take down a specific video. This directive came in response to content uploaded by influencer Yohan Tengra, which was deemed defamatory towards the pharmaceutical company Serum Institute of India and its CEO, Adar Poonawalla. The court's decision, presided over by Justice Gauri Godse, specifically addressed the video's breach of a prior injunction order that had been issued as part of an ongoing ₹100-crore defamation lawsuit initiated by Serum Institute and Mr. Poonawalla.

In a related development, the court also initiated contempt proceedings against Mr. Tengra and three other defendants. A show-cause notice was issued under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, citing their deliberate disobedience of the court's earlier injunction. This action underscores the judiciary's firm stance on compliance with its orders, particularly in cases involving alleged defamation and the spread of harmful content online. The case, formally known as Serum Institute of India v. Yohan Tengra & Ors., highlights the challenges of enforcing judicial directives in the digital sphere.

The origins of this legal confrontation trace back to 2022, when Mr. Tengra and his associates began publishing a series of videos containing what were described as derogatory allegations. These videos leveled severe accusations of wrongdoing against both Serum Institute and its chief executive, Adar Poonawalla. In response to these publications, Serum Institute pursued legal recourse by filing a defamation suit, seeking to protect its reputation and that of its leadership.

Following the initial legal action, the High Court issued an injunction in June 2023, which explicitly prohibited the defendants from disseminating further defamatory material. However, on the very evening this order was passed, Mr. Tengra uploaded a new video, openly declaring his refusal to comply with the court's instructions. This act of defiance prompted Serum Institute to return to court, presenting evidence of the continued non-compliance and seeking further intervention to enforce the injunction.

A significant aspect of this case involves the Bombay High Court's approach to intermediary liability, particularly concerning platforms like X Corp. On September 29, Justice Godse had previously declined to issue broad directives that would compel intermediaries to pre-emptively censor all future uploads or indiscriminately suspend user accounts. This earlier ruling reflected the court's careful consideration of the role of social media platforms.

The court emphasized that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act does not grant intermediaries the authority to act as overarching censors or judicial arbiters. This interpretation clarifies that while courts can order the removal of specific content found to be in violation of an injunction, they are generally reluctant to impose blanket censorship orders that could infringe upon free expression or place an undue burden on platforms. The targeted order for X Corp to remove defamatory content against Serum Institute, therefore, aligns with this nuanced understanding of intermediary responsibilities under the IT Act Section 79.

The recent directive from the Bombay High Court X defamatory Serum Institute case carries substantial implications for how social media platforms manage content and how defamation orders are enforced in India. The issuance of a show-cause notice for contempt against Yohan Tengra and others underscores the serious consequences of disregarding judicial injunctions. This serves as a stark reminder that court orders, including those pertaining to the removal of defamatory content, must be respected and complied with.

This ruling, which includes the Adar Poonawalla defamation order, reinforces the judiciary's ability to compel platforms like X Corp to act when content is found to violate existing legal directives. While the court maintains a cautious approach to blanket censorship, its willingness to enforce specific content removal orders and pursue contempt proceedings for non-compliance provides a clearer framework for addressing online defamation. The Bombay High Court social media injunction demonstrates a balanced approach, protecting individual and corporate reputations while navigating the complexities of digital communication.

This ruling provides clarity on intermediary liability for social media platforms like X in India, affirming that courts can compel removal of specific defamatory content while generally refraining from issuing blanket censorship orders. Lawyers advising clients on defamation should note the court's interpretation of Section 79 of the IT Act and the serious implications of non-compliance with injunctions, as demonstrated by the show-cause notice issued for contempt.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench