The Delhi High Court has allowed the sale and circulation of book ‘Yes Man: The Untold Story of Rana Kapoor’ while restraining publication of four “derogatory” portions concerning former Yes Bank CEO Rana Kapoor.
The High Court granted interim relief to HarperCollins Publishers India Pvt Ltd and Pavan Chand Lall, publisher and author of the book respectively, saying the apprehended injury identified by the trial court arises from four statements and the remaining contents of the book have not been found, at this stage, to constitute “defamatory” or “derogatory” material.
“The restraint, therefore, ought to be confined to the material in respect of which the prima facie finding has been sustained, namely statements (ii), (iv), (vii) and (x). Such a course would protect the reputation of Rana Kapoor against further dissemination of the specific imputations found to be prima facie defamatory or derogatory, while avoiding an unnecessary restraint upon the remaining contents of the subject book,” Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said in an order passed on November 6. The court, in its 80-page judgment, said while it finds no reason to interfere with the findings returned by the trial court in respect of the four statements as “derogatory”, the consequential direction restraining the publication, sale, distribution and circulation of the book in its entirety cannot be sustained in its present form.
The High Court said the modification is confined to the scope of interim relief and should not be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the allegations or the defences available to the parties. It opined that pending trial, the ban on the publication of the book is clearly not warranted.
“A total ban on the publication of the book, to the mind of this court, tilts the balance in the favour of one category of rights asserted, namely that of the right to social reputation, without addressing the right to freedom of speech and expression which is guaranteed by the Constitution,” the court said.
It said an order that effectively takes away one right in preference for the other, that too at a stage before the rival contentions can be analysed and appreciated in detail, is a bit “extreme and unwarranted”.