The Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), North, Lucknow, has reiterated that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. Referring to Supreme Court’s decision in the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467], the court held that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. Accordingly, the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Speaking for the Bench, Shailesh Kumar Singh noted that that the suit has been brought by the plaintiff against 4 PM News Network Pvt Ltd. and its Director/Editor, Google LLC (YouTube), Meta Platforms Inc., Meta Platforms India Pvt Ltd., X Corp., and Twitter Communications India Pvt Ltd. Mr. Singh further noted that the plaintiff, being in-charge of the minority front of the Bharatiya Janata Party, District Lakhimpur Kheri, had alleged that the Defendants have been publishing a series of defamatory videos for a very long time through the social media platforms YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter).
However, the Court found that the plaintiff has not disclosed any such fact in his pleadings that would show that any of his legal rights have actually been violated as a result of the act committed by the defendants, for which he has a cause of action to file the suit. Rather, the facts mentioned in the plaint indicate that this suit has been filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the objectionable comments made by Defendant No. 1 against the Prime Minister of the Republic of India, against the Election Commission, and against constitutional institutions.
Pointing out that no such document has been presented by him along with the plaint which would show that the plaintiff has been authorized by the said persons/institutions to file a suit in relation to the tarnishing of their reputation, the Court said that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff merely by presenting himself as a worker of a political party, whereas it is clear from a perusal of the facts mentioned in the plaint that the defendants are said to have published objectionable news against the constitutional institutions of India, the Prime Minister of India, etc., through their YouTube channel, Twitter, etc.
Briefly, the plaintiff an active worker of the BJP, had preferred the present suit on account of defamatory news being run against the Prime Minister, the Election Commission, and other constitutional bodies on YouTube and other social media platforms. Due to the use of disrespectful words against the Prime Minister and due to the broadcast of misleading information against democratic institutions, causing a decline in public trust towards them, the plaintiff, being a worker of the party, requested for a direction to be issued for the immediate removal of the videos uploaded on YouTube and other social media platforms.
Note: The translation of the document has been provided by Thothica
