Alok Kumar Brara vs Sarah Jane & Ors

The plaintiff Alok Kumar Brara, resident of New Delhi, has instituted this suit against Sarah Jane, resident of California, USA, and Twitter Inc.,

USA, pleading (i) that the plaintiff is a publisher and founder/Chief Executive Officer of India Infrastructure Publishing; (ii) that the name and

photograph of the plaintiff constitutes the original literary and photographic work, with the plaintiff as the owner of the copyright therein; (iii) that the

plaintiff‟s attention was drawn to certain tweets tweeted from a Twitter handle @SarahJa90007013; (iv) that a perusal of the said Twitter account

showed that the said account holder had joined Twitter only in February, 2018; (v) the said tweets were/are defamatory, derogatory and abusive of the

plaintiff; (vi) the plaintiff, on 23rd March, 2018 reported offensive tweets through the reporting forms available on the platform of the defendant no.2

Twitter Inc.; (vii) a second take down notice was issued on 26th March, 2018; (viii) the defendant no.2 rejected the take down request made by the

plaintiff without providing any valid or reasonable explanation; (ix) that the defendant no.1 Twitter handle has been used only for the purpose of

publishing tweets defamatory and derogatory to the plaintiff; (x) the said tweets call the plaintiff “a lecherous pestâ€, “in the garb of father

figure, harassing and coercing the employees into sexâ€, “destroying girls, many as old as his own daughter†and call for an investigation into the

conduct of the plaintiff (though the plaintiff, in the plaint has given other details also of the said tweets but for the present purpose need is not felt to

record the same); (xi) that the defendant no.1 Twitter handle is being used only for the purpose of tarnishing the impeccable reputation, goodwill and

standing of the plaintiff; (xii) on 22nd April, 2018, the plaintiff learnt of other tweets published on the defendant no.1 Twitter handle, also defaming the

plaintiff; (xiii) that when one goes to the Twitter page of the defendant no.1, the same does not have any identity of Sarah Jane; (xiv) the photographs

of the plaintiff have also been published in the tweet; (xv) what is claimed in the Twitter handle is false; (xvi) the said tweets violate the copyright and

other proprietary rights of the plaintiff and also amount to defamation and identity theft of the plaintiff; (xvii) that the said tweets are cause irreparable

loss and injury to the plaintiff; (xviii) that the Twitter page by the name of Sarah Jane and the associated Twitter handle of the defendant no.1 are

forged and fabricated and manipulated; (xix) that there is no real person by the name of Sarah Jane; (xx) the defendant no.2 Twitter Inc. is an

intermediary within the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000; (xxi) that the defendant no.2, under the Indian

Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2011, is obligated to observe due diligence; (xxii) that though the plaintiff has called upon the

defendant no.2 to take down the offending tweets, but the defendant no.2 has not taken any action; and, (xxiii) the defendant no.2 Twitter Inc. is also

liable to disclose the identity of the defendant no.1.

The plaintiff has thus claimed the reliefs of, (i) perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from defaming the plaintiff and from infringing the

copyright of the plaintiff; (ii) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to take down the Twitter page and remove the offending tweets and to

disclose the identity of the defendant no.1 Twitter handle or any other Twitter handle from which defamatory tweets have been tweeted; and, (iii) for

recovery of damages in the sum of Rs.2,05,00,000/-.

The suit came up first before this Court on 1st May, 2018 and was adjourned from time to time as requisite court fees had not been paid. Finally on

12th December, 2018 summons of the suit were ordered to be issued and the defendant no.2 Twitter Inc. directed to furnish to this Court in a sealed

cover the particulars available with it of the natural person behind the defendant no.1 Twitter handle and restrained from deleting the electronic

records of the said twitter account, and to, within 48 hours of service of the order, suspend the defendant no.1 Twitter account.

The counsel for the plaintiff on 18th March, 2019 informed that the defendant no.1 Twitter account had been suspended. Therefrom service of the

defendant no.1 was deemed to have been completed. However none appeared for either of the two defendants despite service.

It was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff on 18th March, 2019, why the suit should not be disposed of making absolute the order dated 12th

The counsel for the plaintiff, on 18th March, 2019 stated that the plaintiff needed to find the identity of the person who was manning the subject

account.

However the counsel for the plaintiff was informed that even upon particulars of the person behind the Twitter account being disclosed/furnished, it

generally does not lead to identity of the person. The counsel for the plaintiff on 18th March, 2019 sought time to consider and take instructions.

Thereafter 16th April, 2019 the counsel for the plaintiff again sought adjournment on the same grounds.

Today, the counsel for the plaintiff states that the suit be disposed of in terms of the order dated 12th December, 2018.

Though the suit raises issues of diverse implication but in the facts of the present case, it is not deemed necessary to keep the suit pending

inasmuch as the plaintiff is not seeking any other relief except for suspension of the defendant no.1 Twitter account.

The suit is thus disposed of directing the defendant no.2 Twitter Inc., USA to make inoperative and deactivate the Twitter account

@SarahJa90007013.

The parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn up.