- INDIA bloc holds sit-in at Rajghat
- JOSH campaign launched to combat TB in Rangareddy
- GST Council softens enforcement, eases compliance
- TG experiencing scorching heat amid deficit rainfall
- e-HRMS for all govt employees by October 15
- Hyderabad: Malkajgiri all set to come alive with Bathukamma celebrations
- CMC demolishes 14 unauthorised structures
- Housing Board launches portal to resolve Indiramma claims
HC hears Bandi Sai Bageerath’s plea for dynamic injunction against SW content
In Short
Justice E V Venugopal heard submissions made by senior counsel Avinash Desai, who sought a “dynamic Injunction” to cover not only the content already identified in the petition, but also similar material that may be uploaded in the future.
Share :
Telangana High Court
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday heard a writ filed by Bandi Sai Bageerath seeking protection against the publication and circulation of allegedly offending content about him on social media and other platforms.
Justice E V Venugopal heard submissions made by senior counsel Avinash Desai, who sought a “dynamic Injunction” to cover not only the content already identified in the petition, but also similar material that may be uploaded in the future.
He submitted that social media posts are published and circulated in real time and can spread rapidly. If similar offending content is uploaded after the court passes an order, the petitioner should be allowed to bring it to the notice of the concerned platforms and seek its removal without having to approach the court each time.
The counsel referred to a Bombay HC judgment dealing with dynamic injunctions and urged the court to consider a similar mechanism in this case. The respondents include Google, Meta and X, formerly known as Twitter. The petitioner sought directions restraining the respondents and other unidentified persons or channels from publishing or circulating ‘speculative’ and ‘sensational content concerning him’.
During the hearing, the bench examined the scope of the proposed injunction and how any future offending material could be brought to the notice of the social media platforms for appropriate action. The court questioned the wording and scope of the proposed interim relief. It examined whether the proposed direction would allow the petitioner’s counsel to communicate directly with the platforms if similar offending content appeared in the future.
The bench questioned the relevance of certain media reports and transcripts placed on record by the petitioner. The material included discussions and reports concerning criminal cases. When counsel sought to rely on the material to explain the impact of media coverage on criminal proceedings, the court asked him to confine his submissions to the facts and issues arising in this case. “Confine yourself to your case. Do not travel beyond it,” it observed.
The proceedings referred to documents served on the respondents, including soft copies of the papers and the relevant register.
After hearing, Justice Venugopal allowed five interim applications filed and adjourned the case for four weeks.
