DTNEXT v. Daily Thanthi Group

A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 20244.Hindu Tamil Ksl KSL MEDIA LIMITED, Kasturi Centre, 124, Wallajah Road, Chennai 600 002. 5.DTNEXT vs. Daily Thanthi Group 86, EVK Sampath Road, Chennai 600 007.6.The New Indian Express Express Network Private Limited, Express Gardens, 29, Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 058. 7.News 7 Tamil, 110E, Kodambakkam High Road, Tirumurthy Nagar, Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034.8.Dinamalar, Rep., by its Chief Editor No:39, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014.9.PTI News, The Press Trust of India Limited, 1st Floor, No.10, First Main Road, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.10.Deccan Herald, The Printers (Mysore) Pvt., Ltd., Prestige Point, Flat No.2A, Ground Floor, 47/2, Haddows Road, Nungamabakkam, Chennai - 600 006.11.Times of India,2/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024 Times Internet Ltd., Ecstasy IT Park Plot 391, Udyog Vihar, Phase 3 (Opp. Trident Hotel), Gurgaon, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122016.12.Zee News, INDIADOTCOM DIGITAL PRIVATE LIMITED 16-a,Noida – 20130113.Republic World, FC6V+ 7RF, Sector 158, Noida, Gulavali, Uttar Pradesh – 201 310.14.ETV Bharat, Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt., Ltd., Ramoji Film City, R.R. District, Hyderabad – 501 512.15.Realty + (Plus) Mediasset Holdings, 3rd Floor, D-40, Sector-2, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301.16.ET Realty, Times House, 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.17.The News Minute, Spunklane Media Pvt Ltd., No.6, SBI Road, (Madras Bank Road), Bangalore – 560 001.18.Daiji World, Daijiworld Residency, Airport Road, Bondel Post,3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024 Mangalore – 575 008.19.The Print, 3rd Floor, 9 & 10 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002.20.South First, Dakshin Digital Media Pvt., Ltd., FlaL 501, Manbhum Vinlgrs Apartment, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500082.21.Realty NXT, 203, 2nd Floor, Ackruti Star, MIDC Central Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 093.22.Latestly Media Pvt., Ltd., Raheja District 1, 83 & E}4, RICC, Plot Gen-211/8, D Block, T.T.C.Industrial Area, Juinagar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 706.23.Sathiyam TV Youtube Channel, Sathiyam Television, 1, Lotus Ramasamy Street, AJ Colony, Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013.24.Sun News Tamil, Murasoli Maran Towers, 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai – 600 028.25.Savukku Media You Tube Channel, 4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024 No.12/6, MMDA, TNHB Flats, Maduravoyal, Tiruvallur, Poonamallee – 600 095.26.Puthiya Thalaimurai, You Tube Channel, New Generation Media Corp., Pvt Ltd., No.25a, N.P.Industrial Estate, Ekkaduthangal, Chennai – 600 032.27.Malai Murasu TV 24 X7 You Tube Channel, 246 1st Floor, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights East, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006.28.New 18 Tamil Nadu Bascon Mearu, 5 & 6th Floor, RRC Centre, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034.29.News Tamil 24x7, 145-1-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.30.Google LI-C, DIB/A YouTube 9O1 Cherry Ave San Bruno, CA94066 USA, Having India Office at Clean copy You Tube Rep., by its Resident Grievance Officer for You Tube, Mr.Suraj Rao Google LLC- India Liaison office, Unit NO.26, The Executive Center, Level 8, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 01. … Respondents5/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024A.NO.129 of 2025For Applicant : Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam Sr., counselfor M/s.Vivrti lawFor Respondent : Mr.V.Prakash Sr., counsel forMr.Kamalakannan forMs.Jayasudha for RR1 &2Mr.U.M.Shiva Kumar for R3M/s.Shivakumar & SureshMs.K.Sunitha for R8Mr.Hari Narayanan R17Mr.G.Balasubramaniam for M/s.Leela & Co for R30O.A.No.793 of 2025 & A.No.399 of 2025For Applicant : Mr.V.Prakash Sr., counsel for Mr.Kamalakannan for Ms.JayasudhaFor Respondent : Mr.U.M.Shiva Kumar for D1M/s.Shivakumar & SureshMs.K.Sunitha for D6Mr.Hari Narayanan D15Mr.G.Balasubramaniam for M/s.Leela & Co for D28Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam Sr., counselfor M/s.Vivrti law for D296/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024COMMON ORDERThe original application O.A. No.792 of 2024 has been filed seeking to grant an interim injunction retraining the 29th defendant from continuing to publish the online posts mentioned in the schedule-B links.2. The Original Application in O.A. No.793 of 2024 has been filed seeking to grant an interim injunction restraining the defendants D1 to D27 from keeping the posts mentioned in the schedule-A links. 3. The application in A.No. 399 of 2025 has been filed seeking to grant an interim direction to the 29th defendant to remove the schedule mentioned X Posts. 4. The application in A.No.129 of 2025 has been filed by the 29th respondent seeking to vacate the ex-parte order dated 24.10.2024 passed by this Honble Court in O.A. No. 792 of 2024.7/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 20245. Heard Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.KamalaKannan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Jayasudha, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Vivrti Law, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 29th defendant. 6. Mr.V.Prakash, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that, the erstwhile Director and a minority shareholder of 10% of paid up equity of the first applicant (M/s. Ocean Life Spaces India Pvt Ltd.,) Mr.Balasubramaniam Sriram filed a Company Petition alleging oppression and mismanagement against the 1st applicant and its Director in C.P.No 258/2020 before the Hon’ble NCLT, Chennai Bench. He had also filed a Criminal Complaint before CCB, Greater Chennai Police and registered a case in FIR 201/2023. The Enforcement Directorate (herein referred to as ED) took the cognizance of the scheduled offences in the FIR and initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and registered in ECIR/CEZO-I/03/2024. He further submits that the second applicant is the Managing Director and the major shareholder with 88.93% in the first applicant . The 2nd 8/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024applicant and the above mentioned erstwhile Director entered into a compromise and the FIR No 201/ 2023 was quashed in CRL.OP.No.26975/2023 by order dated 07.02.2024. The proceedings of ED in ECIR/CEZO-I/03/2024 was also quashed by this Court in WP No. 3894/2024 dated 02.04.2024.7. He further contends that the proceedings arising of the FIR No. 201/2023 and the PMLA proceedings of the ED regarding the ECIR/CEZO-I/03/2024 were reported in public domains through various platforms as posts, articles, videos. He submits that the respondents 1-27 had published digital articles in the public domain, the links of those articles are listed in the schedule ‘A’. He also highlights that in addition to the digital articles the respondents 21 to 27 have published videos in their respective Youtube Channels a platform which is hosted by the 28th Defendant. He submits that the schedule ‘B’ lists, the links of numerous posts which are posted by various individual in the platform hosted by the 29th respondent. The respondents 1,3,4,19,23 have also published posts in the platform hosted by the 29th respondent along with various other individuals. 9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 20248. He further contends that the 1st applicant being an Infrastructure Development company with 650 employees, 350 consultants and 8000 contract labourers which bids for the general contracting works such as MEP (Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing), Design and Build, Civil Construction, etc., with the various MNC’s who are the prospective employers of the 1st applicant who conduct due diligence in assessing their contractors and suppliers before employing. Hence, the continued presence of the articles, posts, videos mentioned in Schedule A and B relating to the issues of FIR No.201/2023 registered by the CCB, Greater Chennai Police and ECIR No. ECIR/CEZO-I/03/2024 creates a negative image about the 1st applicant in the minds of the readers, the reputation and public image of the 1st applicant is in peril. He further contends that there is no necessity for the news articles and video publications to still be in the circulation as the information in them have served their purpose. The existence of those articles and posts creates a negative implication on the reputation of the 1st applicant and hence, affecting its business which puts the livelihood of 650 employees, 350 consultants and 8000 contract labourers in question. He further contends that a prima facie 10/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024case has been made out from the aforementioned facts and the balance of convenience is in the favour of the applicants. Hence, he seeks this court to make the injunction absolute and also seeks this court to take into account the removal of the posts by the respondents in compliance of the interim order. 9. Countering the above arguments of the learned Senior Counsel of the applicants, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.V.Balasubramainam for the 29th Respondent and applicant in the application A.No.129 of 2025, contends that the platform ‘X’ is an ‘intermediary’ under the Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act 2000 and not the ‘originator’ of the posts mentioned in the schedule by the applicants. He further contends that under Section 79(1) of the IT Act as the ‘intermediary’ the respondent is granted immunity from the liability for the third party content posted on its platform. Hence he submits that the originators to those contents should be the necessary parties to the suit. He would further submit that R29 is neither a “Publisher” nor a “Distributor” of the alleged contents in the issue hence they cannot be retrained from hosting online posts which are mentioned in the schedule ‘B’. He further submits that the plaintiffs have only made the originators of the specific contents of those 11/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024mentioned in the schedule ‘A’, which being was being hosted in the platform of R29 as the parties to the suit. He further submits that the plaintiffs have failed to add all originators as the necessary parities to the suit hence constituting a defect of non-joinder of necessary parities. He further contends that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have taken all the necessary steps to identify the array of originators of the impugned contents. He further contends that without the originators being added as the necessary parties to the suit the application is liable to be dismissed for the non-joinder of necessary parties and he further prays the ex-parte order to be vacated. He contends that the plaintiffs claim to “Right to be Forgotten” has no legal basis and the issue of ‘Right to be forgotten’ is currently sub judice before the Supreme Court. He submits that the plaintiffs seeking removal of the contents from the internet (a public domain) which forms a part of public information . He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a “Right to be forgotten” cannot be asserted in respect of the public information in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) Vs Union of India and Ors.,[ (2017) 10 SCC 1]. He further asserts that the plaintiffs themselves have approached the court only after the lapse of 6-7 months, thus such a delay on the part of the plaintiffs 12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024highlights the fact that there was no urgency which can justify the plaintiffs seeking an ex-parte. 11. Mr.U.M.Shivakumar for M/s. Shiva Kumar and Suresh, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent asserts that the respondent merely published the press release dated 22.01.2024 based on the ED conducted searches at 7 locations linked to the 2nd applicant. He submits that the articles posted were only based on the press release given by ED which are available in many other platforms. He further contends that the applicant is advocating censorship and selective dissemination which is contrary to the fundamental right of citizens to obtain information. 12. He further submits that that “The Hindu” is the widely popular Trade Name and is neither a Legal entity nor a Natural Human. He states that the respondent is ready to publish a further clarification in their forum provided the clarifications are backed by the applicants with proper evidence and at their own cost. He further contends that the averments regarding the 13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024internet search engines bringing up the material for the links of the impugned content should be taken up with the search engines and the Respondent has no control over it.13. The learned counsels for their other respondents filed the compliance affidavit/memo as directed by this Hon’ble court vide order dated 14.11.2024, stating whether the order dated 24.10.2024 was complied by them. The respondents 1, 6 and 24 filed a memo and the respondents 4, 27, 25, 21, 15, 28, 29 filed the compliance affidavit regarding the removal of impugned content, as directed by the order dated 24.10.2024. 13. Considered the arguments made by the respective counsels and perused the materials on record. 14. Pursuant to the interim orders granted by this Court respondents 1, 6, 15, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28 & 29 had filed a compliance affidavits indicating the removal of the impugned content as directed by this Court. The first respondent had also filed a counter contending that what had been published 14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024by it is only a press release of the Enforcement Department and that the Enforcement Department is not being made a party, the first respondent ought not to have been directed to remove the content that too by an ex-parte order.15. It is his case that in compliance with the said ex-parte order, he had also removed the content. He would submit that what was published by the first respondent was a fact that was made known through a press note by the Enforcement Department and that press note is still available on various other platforms including the website of the Enforcement Department. Without the Enforcement Department, who is the author directed to delete such alleged offending publication, no injunction ought to be granted against the respondent. 16. Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 29th respondent had vehemently contended that the 29th respondent is only a intermediary who provides platform for various persons to post their news and views and he had also vehemently relied upon the provisions of the Information and Technology Act to mean a person who on 15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024behalf of another person receives source or transmits a record or provides any service with respect to the records. A person who sends those electric records are the originators who generates, stores and transmits any electronic messages and transmits to any other person but does not include the intermediator. Therefore, the 29th respondent is not a publisher of the electronic records. 17. He had also contended that the applicant had not impleaded all the originators of whose posts are available on the platform of the 29th respondent who is the intermediator. With regard to the schedule-B items, the originators have not been made as as party and the other relief is only against the 29th respondent with regard to the Schedule-B items. Further, the principle of right to be forgotten cannot be invoked by the applicant and the same is subjudice before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 18. It is not the case of the applicant/plaintiff that it was the respondents herein who were responsible for the cause of the said publication. As regards to respondents 1 to 27, what had been published is a news item which came into the light pursuant to the press release given by the Enforcement 16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024Department, who is not a party. Similarly, the 29th respondent is only a intermediatory as claimed by them and they do not originate the posts that come on the platform. If any interim order is granted against them from removing such posts, it would affect the right and interest of the originators who generates such news and views. Since, the respondents 4, 6, 15, 21, 24, 25, 27 & 28 had complied with the interim orders passed by this Court and only respondents 1 & 29 have raised their objections for the grant of the interim orders. The interim orders shall stand vacated only as against the respondents 1 & 29 alone. 19. In fine, the application in A.No. 129 of 2025 is allowed and applications in O.A.No.792 of 2024 and A.No.399 of 2025 are dismissed. The application in O.A.No.793 of 2024 is partly allowed against respondents 2 to 27 and is dismissed against first respondent. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. 23.04.2025Index : Yes / No17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024Internet:Yes / NoGba18/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 2024K.KUMARESH BABU.J.,GbaPre-Delivery Order inA.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 202419/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.Nos.129 & 399 of 2025,O.A.Nos.792 & 793 of 2024inC.S.No.250 of 202423.04.202520/20