HC restrains research body from publishing articles against Saveetha institute of medical and technical sciences without prior notice

Further, the bench added that if any response is received within such a timeline i.e., within 72 hours, the organisation could publish the statement along with the response. However, it could not publish the article if no such response was received.

"The respondents shall not publish any statements on any social media or public platforms regarding the activities of the applicant without causing a notice on the applicant of the queries or gist of the articles to the email I.D. of the applicant, for a response from the applicant. If any response is received within 72 hours, then the respondents may make a statement and in doing so, they shall also publish the response received by him with prominence. If no such response is received within the aforesaid period, they shall proceed to publish the article," ordered the HC bench.

However, clarifying that the organisation was at liberty to make statements based on available public records, including court records, the HC bench further directed, "If such statements are based upon public records including the Court records, then the respondents are at liberty to make a fair comment/criticism only on the materials available in the public domain." 

These observations were made by the HC bench while hearing a plea by Saveetha Institute seeking to restrain the concerned research organisation from publishing defamatory content against the institute. Apart from this, the medical institute also prayed to the court for directing the research organisation to immediately remove the articles and to issue a formal interim public apology for defaming the institute.

It was contended by the institute that Saveetha Dental College was one of the top dental institutes across the world, affiliated with Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS) Chennai and it consistently ranked number 1 in India by the NIRF for three consecutive years. Further, the institute argued that it was renowned for advanced dental education, research, and clinical training and its students and faculties had been contributing to high-impact journals. The institute further argued that it had the highest publication count in the country with more than 11,000 publications in SCOPUS and 7000 in Web of Science, raising its academic profile.

It was alleged by the institute that the respondent research organisation had been making defamatory article against the institute and targeting it continuously without proof and with false statistics and false allegations. It was further argued that the organisation had flagged the petitioner institute's publications as suspicious, and the same was done with a political agenda.  The petitioner institute claimed that the research organisation had even posted the institute's advertisement, labelling it as a "education scam", which was highly defamatory and outrageous claim, demonstrating a clear intent to harm the institute's reputation.

On the other hand, the respondent organisation claimed that the statements made in the journal are truthful, based on real and concrete data and have been published in the public interest, constituting fair comment.

It was also submitted by the research organisation that the researchers of the institute have used self-citations as a game to artificially spike up their citation rates. The organisation also denied the allegation that they were targeting the institute. It was submitted that they were consistently flagging research misconduct.

While considering the matter, the HC bench referred to the judicial precedent and observed, "...it is clear that the reputation of an individual has been placed at the highest altar and has been considered as akin to Right to Life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, that a person making the statement must establish that the statement was a comment and not a fact and to succeed in a plea of fair comment, the defendant must establish that the statement was a comment and not a fact, that even an anti-suit injunction can be granted which will have an impact in a foreign share so long as the parties are subject to in personal jurisdiction; that in appropriate cases, where the Court is of the view that such statements are unsubstantiated and have been made in a reckless manner without to the truth; in order to cause injury to the reputation of the Plaintiff, the Court would be justified in granting an interim injunction; that the public reputation of individuals, cannot be permitted to be suffered by baseless and defamatory statements made by others for trivial or / and malicious purposes; that to grant an interim injunction in a defamatory case, the Courts must assess whether the statement is prima facie defamatory, false and lacks valid defences such as truth, fair comment or privilege."

Further, at the same outset, the Court also noted that "...fair comment and justification is not defamation, fair comment is that which, in the opinion of jury, is not beyond what any reasonable or fair person, however prejudiced, might say. Every latitude must be given to opinion and to prejudice, and then we must see whether a fair or reasonable person would make such a comment; that the Court has to balance freedom of speech with reputation and privacy, fair comment in public interest and for public participation cannot be restricted. Interim mandatory injunction can be granted only when there is a very strong prima facie case apart from other aspects regarding irreparable loss and balance of convenience, tests to be satisfied are far more stringent in case of an interim mandatory injunction and can be granted only in exceptional cases; that grant of pre-trial injunction in cases of libel is not automatic and unless it is shown that all defences would fail injunction should not be granted. Further it is clear that an injunction should not be granted if the defendant has pleaded truth as a defence unless it is unequivocally evident that the defendant is bound to fair at trial and the Court must aim to present premature shifting of potentially valid defences rooted in facts."

The bench noted that the defence of the research organisation is that the publications were truthful. In this regard, the bench observed, "The relief sought for with regard to interim injunction of publishing further defamatory articles is concerned, this Court perused the publications, where some contents found prima facie defamatory."

Further, the Court noted that the interim prayer sought by the Institute could not be granted since the main player itself was for a mandatory injunction to remove defamatory articles. Observing that the Court had to balance the freedom of speech with reputation and privacy, the bench issued directions to the institute to publish articles with prior intimation to the institute.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/saveetha-institute-v-india-research-madras-hc-321058.pdf

Also Read: Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences publishes over 10000 research journals