The Delhi high court has referred the high-profile defamation case between TV Today Network, journalist Anjana Om Kashyap, and popular educator 'Khan Sir' to mediation, urging both parties to seek an amicable resolution.
Key Points
- Delhi high court refers defamation case involving Anjana Om Kashyap and 'Khan Sir' to mediation for amicable settlement.
- The lawsuit, filed by TV Today Network and Kashyap, seeks Rs 2 crore in damages from Khan Sir and other educators.
- The dispute arose after Kashyap's broadcast on YouTube teachers and subsequent alleged personal attacks via social media.
- Defendants are accused of crossing fair criticism limits and discussing politics in educational curricula.
The Delhi high court on July 2, Thursday, referred to mediation TV Today Network Ltd and its managing editor Anjana Om Kashyap's case against educator Faisal Khan, popularly known as 'Khan Sir', and other teachers over publication of alleged defamatory social media posts.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela told the channel and Kashyap to exercise restraint, while asking Khan Sir to remove his post on the journalist's children.
Calling for an amicable settlement, the court asked the defendants to consider removing "unparliamentary" references in their posts.
Details Of The Defamation Lawsuit
Besides Khan Sir, the lawsuit has named Abhinay Maths founder Abhinay Sharma, ICS coaching co-founder Babita Tyagi, and Naiya Paar Education's Arvind Bhadauriya as defendants. The plaintiffs' counsel submitted that Khan Sir has revealed information on social media on where Kashyap's children are studying and that she was "getting threats".
Court's Call For Restraint And Amicable Resolution
"They (plaintiffs) will refrain. You (Khan Sir) take down disclosure about the child. Try and talk to them and (see that) part where some words have been used if they can be expunged," the court told the lawyers. "Restraint has to be shown by both. You (plaintiff's counsel) ensure your client slows down. And you (Khan Sir) stop the disclosure (on children).
"This is not an issue that should be coming to court. When you are teaching youngsters, it should not become a part of you, correct?" the court orally added.
The counsel for the plaintiffs and the Khan Sir gave an assurance that they would exercise restraint and take down any reference to the children, respectively.
Mediation Proceedings And Allegations
"After having probed a little, it appears that that the parties can and may be able to resolve these disputes amicably. The parties are willing to explore the terms of settlement in case a senior mediator is appointed. They are also willing to commence mediation proceedings today itself," the court said in the order.
During the hearing, the plaintiff's counsel said the defendants were discussing politics in their curriculum, which are not supposed to as educators.
"Everybody is discussing politics. A person who doesn't know anything about politics discusses politics. That is what is politics is all about," the court remarked.
The court will hear the matter next week.
Background Of The Dispute And Damages Sought
Kashyap and TV Today said in the lawsuit, that on May 29, the journalist expressed a genuine concern about the credibility of YouTube teachers during a broadcast on Aaj Tak news channel in the aftermath of the NEET paper leak controversy.
The defendants -- educators, operators of educational platforms -- "crossed the limit of fair criticism" and launched personal attacks on Kashyap's character, integrity and professional reputation through social media posts between May 30 and June 4, the lawsuit alleged.
The defendants have claimed that the allegedly defamatory posts were only in reaction to a broadcast by Kashyap on a channel of the network. The plaintiffs have sought Rs 2 crore as damages from Khan Sir and others. A prayer is also made to restrain the defendants from making any disparaging comment.
The plaintiffs had moved the high court with their defamation lawsuit in June and sought immediate take-down of the content published by the defendants.
The plaintiffs' counsel had accused the defendants of using "toxic" and "abusive" language and even inciting violence in their posts. Without giving any interim relief at that stage, a vacation bench had asked the defendants to file their replies in the case.
