New Delhi [India], November 6 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Friday modified an interim injunction against HarperCollins and author Pavan Chand Lall, directing that the restraint on the book “Yes Man: The Untold Story of Rana Kapoor” would apply only to four specific passages found, at the interim stage, to be prima facie defamatory or derogatory.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the remaining portions of the book could not be restrained merely because certain specific statements had been found objectionable, and said an injunction operating against a publication must be no wider than necessary.
The High Court thus modified a July 2024 order of a Delhi trial court which had restrained the sale, distribution and circulation of the entire book during the pendency of Rana Kapoor’s defamation suit.
The Court directed that the restraint would operate only against the portions containing Statements (ii), (iv), (vii) and (x), as identified in the trial court’s order. The remaining contents of the book would not be covered by the injunction, it said.
The Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s findings in respect of Statements (iv), (vii) and (x), which had been found prima facie defamatory, or with its characterisation of Statement (ii) as derogatory.
However, Justice Shankar held that the consequential direction imposing a blanket restraint on the publication, sale, distribution and circulation of the entire book could not be sustained in its existing form.
The Court noted that the trial court had examined specific statements complained of by Kapoor and had found only three of them defamatory, while one other statement was held to be derogatory. The remaining statements complained of had not been found to warrant such a conclusion.
It observed that despite these findings being confined to particular passages, the operative direction of the trial court had extended the injunction to the book as a whole.
The High Court said the apprehended injury identified by the trial court arose from the four specific statements and that the remaining contents of the book had not been found, at this stage, to be defamatory or derogatory.
Restraining only those passages, the Court said, would protect Kapoor’s reputation against further dissemination of the specific imputations while avoiding an unnecessary restriction on the rest of the literary work.
The Court further emphasised that an interlocutory injunction, particularly one affecting publication, must not be broader than necessary. It said the findings at the interim stage were provisional and that issues relating to truth, justification, fair comment, privilege and other defences could only be finally determined after a full trial.
The dispute arose from the publication of “Yes Man: The Untold Story of Rana Kapoor”, authored by Pavan Chand Lall and published by HarperCollins. The book, published in December 2020, deals with the life and career of Kapoor, the former co-founder, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Yes Bank, including the rise and subsequent crisis of the bank.
Kapoor had filed a suit alleging that portions of the book, as well as certain articles and an interview, were defamatory and infringed his rights relating to reputation, privacy and personality. He had also alleged that the publications could prejudice his right to a fair trial.
The trial court had, on July 10, 2024, restrained the defendants from selling, distributing or circulating the book during the pendency of the suit. It had also issued directions concerning allegedly defamatory statements in the articles and interview.
HarperCollins and Lall challenged the order before the High Court.
While modifying the injunction, the High Court clarified that its observations were confined to the scope of interim relief and should not be treated as a final expression on the merits of the allegations or the defences available to the parties.
The trial court, the High Court said, would decide the suit uninfluenced by the observations in the present judgment, except to the extent expressly determined for deciding the interlocutory relief. (ANI)
Related reading
