News Analysis India

Tag: Defamation

  • Assam court summons Manish Sisodia in Himanta’s defamation case 

    By PTI

    GUWAHATI: Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia was on Tuesday summoned by a court in Assam to appear in person before it on September 29 in a criminal defamation case filed by the northeastern state’s Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

    The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kamrup, Monmee Sarma, issued the summons to Sisodia for allegedly making defamatory statements against Sarma.

    Sisodia, referring to media reports at a press conference in New Delhi on June 4, had said that while the Assam government procured PPE kits for Rs 600 a piece from other companies, Sarma gave urgent supply orders to the firms of his wife and son’s business partners for Rs 990 a piece.

    Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of the Assam chief minister, had on June 21 filed a Rs 100-crore defamation case against the Delhi deputy CM, who had alleged corruption in giving PPE supply contracts at above market rates.

    The chief minister had on August 5 recorded his statement before the court regarding his case against Sisodia.

    On June 1, two digital media organisations — New Delhi-based ‘The Wire’ and Guwahati-based ‘The Crosscurrent’ — in a joint investigative report claimed that the Assam government had placed four COVID-19 related emergency medical supply orders, most likely without following proper process.

    Citing a series of Right to Information replies, the medial portals claimed that all the four orders, placed between March 18 and March 23 of 2020, were bagged by three firms owned by Bhuyan Sarma and the family’s business associate Ghanshyam Dhanuka.

    She later uploaded a statement on her Twitter account, just hours after the report was published, and dismissed any wrongdoing in supplying the PPE kits to the NHM, claiming that she did not take a “single penny” for the kits.

    The present Assam government and Sarma have separately denied all charges that the chief minister’s family was involved in the alleged malpractices and termed the allegations by the two digital media as “false, imaginary, malicious and of vested interests”.

    The present Assam chief minister was the health minister in 2020 during the first BJP-led state government.

    Opposition parties — Congress, CPI, CPI(M), CPI(ML) Liberation, RCPI, TMC, Raijor Dal, Assam Jatiya Parishad and Anchalik Gana Morcha — have demanded a CBI probe into the alleged corruption in giving contracts to Sarma’s wife and family business friend to supply PPE kits above market rates.

    GUWAHATI: Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia was on Tuesday summoned by a court in Assam to appear in person before it on September 29 in a criminal defamation case filed by the northeastern state’s Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

    The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kamrup, Monmee Sarma, issued the summons to Sisodia for allegedly making defamatory statements against Sarma.

    Sisodia, referring to media reports at a press conference in New Delhi on June 4, had said that while the Assam government procured PPE kits for Rs 600 a piece from other companies, Sarma gave urgent supply orders to the firms of his wife and son’s business partners for Rs 990 a piece.

    Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of the Assam chief minister, had on June 21 filed a Rs 100-crore defamation case against the Delhi deputy CM, who had alleged corruption in giving PPE supply contracts at above market rates.

    The chief minister had on August 5 recorded his statement before the court regarding his case against Sisodia.

    On June 1, two digital media organisations — New Delhi-based ‘The Wire’ and Guwahati-based ‘The Crosscurrent’ — in a joint investigative report claimed that the Assam government had placed four COVID-19 related emergency medical supply orders, most likely without following proper process.

    Citing a series of Right to Information replies, the medial portals claimed that all the four orders, placed between March 18 and March 23 of 2020, were bagged by three firms owned by Bhuyan Sarma and the family’s business associate Ghanshyam Dhanuka.

    She later uploaded a statement on her Twitter account, just hours after the report was published, and dismissed any wrongdoing in supplying the PPE kits to the NHM, claiming that she did not take a “single penny” for the kits.

    The present Assam government and Sarma have separately denied all charges that the chief minister’s family was involved in the alleged malpractices and termed the allegations by the two digital media as “false, imaginary, malicious and of vested interests”.

    The present Assam chief minister was the health minister in 2020 during the first BJP-led state government.

    Opposition parties — Congress, CPI, CPI(M), CPI(ML) Liberation, RCPI, TMC, Raijor Dal, Assam Jatiya Parishad and Anchalik Gana Morcha — have demanded a CBI probe into the alleged corruption in giving contracts to Sarma’s wife and family business friend to supply PPE kits above market rates.

  • Prince Harry wins first stage in suit against UK tabloid

    By Associated Press

    LONDON: Prince Harry won the first stage of a libel suit against the publisher of Britain’s Mail on Sunday newspaper as a judge ruled Friday that parts of a story about his fight for police protection in the UK were defamatory.

    High Court Justice Matthew Nicklin hasn’t yet considered issues such as whether the story was accurate or in the public interest, defences that the newspaper will be able to offer in the next phase of the proceedings.

    The suit revolves around the newspaper’s coverage of a separate High Court action Harry filed in an effort to force authorities to provide police protection for the prince and his family when they are in the U.K. The government withdrew the family’s round-the-clock protection when Harry and his wife, Meghan, gave up front-line royal duties and moved to California.

    On Feb. 20, 2022, the Mail on Sunday reported that Harry sought a “far-reaching confidentiality order” to keep the details of his action against the government secret. Despite public statements by his spin doctors that the prince had always been willing to pay for police protection, that offer wasn’t made in his initial bid to overturn the government’s decision, the newspaper said.

    Harry claims that the Mail on Sunday libeled him when it suggested that the prince lied in his initial public statements about the suit against the government and that he “cynically” tried to confuse the public by authorizing his representatives to put out “false and misleading statements” about his willingness to pay for police protection.

    Nicklin ruled that the “natural or ordinary meaning” of the article was defamatory. But he stressed that the decision didn’t apply to other issues in the case.

    “This is very much the first phase in a libel claim,” the judge wrote in his decision. “The next step will be for the defendant to file a defense to the claim. It will be a matter for determination later in the proceedings whether the claim succeeds or fails, and if so on what basis.”

  • Amber Heard’s attorney urges court to toss out defamation trial verdict

    By IANS

    LOS ANGELES: Amber Heard wants the verdict of the defamation trial against her ex-husband Johnny Depp to be tossed out. The ‘Aquaman’ actress’s attorney filed a motion requesting that including the $10.35 million in damages awarded to Depp by the jury, reports Variety.

    In addition to Heard’s attorneys arguing that the verdict is not supported by evidence, the 43-page document submitted to the Fairfax County Circuit Court also calls “to investigate improper juror service”, ‘Variety’ adds.

    It claimed that public information indicates that a juror who served during the trial was born in 1970, despite court officials listing the person’s birth year as 1945.

    Heard’s lawyers wrote, “This discrepancy raises the question whether Juror 15 actually received a summons for jury duty and was properly vetted by the court to serve on the jury.”

    Variety notes that Heard’s legal team also argues that the jurors’ $10.35 million award against the actress is “inconsistent and irreconcilable” with the jury’s conclusion that both her and Depp had defamed one another.

    In addition to Depp’s $10 million in compensatory damages, plus $350,000 in punitive damages, the jury also awarded Heard $2 million in compensatory damages for her counterclaim.

    Heard’s attorneys further wrote in the filing that “Mr. Depp presented no evidence that Ms. Heard did not believe she was abused. Therefore, Mr. Depp did not meet the legal requirements for actual malice, and the verdict should be set aside.”

    Depp’s lead attorney, Ben Chew, commented on the motion to toss the verdict, dismissing it as “what we expected, just longer, no more substantive” in a statement to ‘Courthouse News’.

  • Amber Heard fires PR team over ‘bad headlines’, days before trial

    LOS ANGELES: Actress Amber Heard fired her PR team and switched to a new firm after she reportedly became frustrated following a week of ‘bad headlines’ during the defamation trial brought by her ex-husband and actor Johnny Depp, a new report claimed.According to dailymail.co.uk, Heard was being represented by Precision Strategies, which she suddenly ditched in favour of LA-based consulting firm Shane Communications. She made the move in apparent hopes that she might receive more favourable coverage this week – during which time she is expected to take to the stand and testify.”She doesn’t like bad headlines,” an unnamed source told the New York Post, which first reported the news, reports dailymail.co.uk. Another source told the newspaper that Heard, 36, is “frustrated with her story not being told effectively.”The A-list trial in Virginia, which started on April 11 and is set to last another three weeks, has so far seen Depp, 58, claim he was the victim of domestic abuse during his four days of testimony – with his bodyguard on Thursday even describing in detail the wounds on the actor’s face allegedly sustained during a confrontation with Heard.The actor is suing Heard for $50 million, claiming she defamed him and ruined his career after a 2018 Washington Post article in which she described herself as a ‘public figure representing domestic abuse’, without naming her ex-husband.Heard is counter-suing for $100 million, and after three weeks of sitting silently in the courtroom during Depp’s testimony, she is preparing to start her fightback, possibly as soon as Wednesday. The PR firm switch came following several days of court testimony from Depp witnesses that saw the social-media mob suddenly turn against Heard.Heard’s credibility as a philanthropist also took a battering when it was claimed she had not donated her $3.5 million divorce settlement to charity, something she had promised publicly to do. She had apparently donated only $1.3 million and much of that appeared to have come from her former boyfriend, billionaire Elon Musk.According to Terence Dougherty, the chief operating officer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the recipient of Amber’s ‘largesse’ of $500,000, it came from a Vanguard fund connected to Musk.Her contributions dried up by 2019, and Dougherty told the court the ACLU ‘learned that she was having financial difficulties’. Heard’s lawyer is arguing Depp abused her both physically and sexually and she hopes to make her point once she takes the stand early this week. Shane Communications is led by its CEO David Shane, who has briefed against Depp in the past.In 2017, the firm highlighted accusations made by Depp’s former business managers, The Management Group, alleging that the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ star needed to hire a shrink for his ‘compulsive spending’ habit of spending $2 million per month.Depp then launched a $25 million lawsuit last month against his business managers, The Mandel Company, claiming ‘gross mismanagement’ of his affairs. One crisis communications expert told the Post that they believed the new PR company would have its work cut out in order to change the narrative.”It’s crazy to change teams in the middle of a trial like this because you don’t like the headlines,” said Lis Smith, a senior communications director for Pete Buttigieg’s 2020 presidential campaign.”After years of narrative building, you can’t change the public’s opinion in the three weeks when someone is suing you in a case.” Heard never wanted cameras to be allowed in the courtroom at all, but Depp’s team pushed for it, and won. Depp has even accused his ex of defecating on their bed in an act of aggression.Testimony so far has also included photos of severed fingers, pictures of feces, videos of explosive arguments and temper tantrums, and even a discussion about the Hollywood star’s penis. Depp denies the allegations of abuse noting how he brought the lawsuit in order to clear his name.Lawyers for Heard say such denials are not credible because the actor was too drunk and high to remember what occurred. The trial in the Fairfax County Courthouse runs Monday to Thursday from 10 am to 5 pm, and is set to conclude on May 19.

  • Amber Heard to go on social media hiatus ahead of defamation lawsuit filed by Johnny Depp 

    By PTI

    LOS ANGELES: Actor Amber Heard says she will be “offline for the next several weeks” as she faces a defamation lawsuit in the US filed by her former husband and embattled Hollywood star Johnny Depp.

    Heard, who will next be seen in Warner Bros/ DC film “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom”, shared the update with her fans and followers on Instagram on Saturday night.

    “I’m going to go offline for the next several weeks. As you may know, I’ll be in Virginia where I face my ex-husband Johnny Depp in court. Johnny is suing me for an op-ed I wrote in the Washington Post, in which I recounted my experience of violence and domestic abuse,” the 35-year-old wrote in the note.

    According to Variety, Depp has launched a legal battle against Heard after she penned a Washington Post op-ed in 2018 stating that she is a survivor of domestic abuse. Although Heard did not mention Depp (58) by name in the column, she accused him of domestic violence after filing for divorce in 2016.

    In her message on Instagram, the actor said in the article in question she never named Depp but rather wrote about “the price women pay for speaking against men in power”.

    “I continue to pay that price, but hopefully when this case concludes, I can move on and so can Johnny,” she further said.

    Depp is pursuing a USD 50 million defamation lawsuit against Heard. Her plea to dismiss the suit after Depp lost his libel case in the UK was denied. The case is set to open Monday in Fairfax County, Virginia.

    In her post Heard continued she has always “maintained a love” for her former husband, adding that “it brings me great pain to have to live out the details of our past life together in front of the world”.

    “At this time, I recognize the ongoing support I’ve been fortunate to receive throughout these years, and in these coming weeks I will be leaning on it more than ever,” she added.

    In November 2020, Depp lost a UK libel case against the publisher of The Sun, a British tabloid that alleged he was a “wife-beater” in a 2018 article. The judge ruled that the words were “substantially true”.

    Later Heard requested that Depp’s defamation suit filed against her in the US be dismissed after the UK verdict came out, since both lawsuits involve allegations of Depp as an abuser. However, the Virginia court ruled that the two cases and statements were “inherently different”.

    Depp has since argued that Hollywood is “boycotting” him, pointing to the long-delayed release of his biopic “Minamata”.

    Since his losing the UK lawsuit, the actor also exited the Warner Bros franchise “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them”, where he had played the main antagonist role of Gellert Grindelwald in two films. Mads Mikkelsen was later recast in the role for the upcoming third film titled “Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore”, which was released in the UK on April 8.

  • Meghan Markle’s half-sister sues her over 2021 Oprah Winfrey interview

    By ANI

    WASHINGTON: The Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle’s half-sister has sued her for allegedly making “false” statements in the 2021 Oprah Winfrey interview that she and Prince Harry gave.

    According to Fox News, the lawsuit filed by Samantha Markle, who shares father Thomas Markle with the duchess, has accused Meghan of defamation.

    It has been “based on demonstrably false and malicious statements” made by Meghan in the sit-down interview viewed by millions around the world on March 7, 2021.

    Samantha has claimed that Meghan had lied about the last time she saw her and about being an “only child”. The lawsuit further alleged that Meghan had falsely said that Samantha changed her last name to Markle only after she had started dating Prince Harry.

    The court documents suggest that Samantha has claimed Meghan’s “lies” were “designed to destroy [her] reputation” and have subjected her to “humiliation, shame and hatred on a worldwide scale.”

    Meghan’s half-sister went on to allege that the duchess had instructed her communications secretary Jason Knauf to “disseminate” false statements for the biography ‘Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family’ by Omid Scobie.

    Highlighting their father’s past work in Hollywood as a “successful television lighting director for 45 years,” Samantha also accused Meghan of damaging their father’s reputation “in order to preserve and promote the false ‘rags-to-royalty’ narrative.”

    Samantha concluded by stating that the truths of Meghan’s life story “directly contradict the false narrative and ‘fairy tale life story’ [Meghan] fabricated.” She is seeking damages in excess of USD 75,000.

    This lawsuit has been termed as “baseless” by Meghan’s attorney Michael Kump, reported Fox News.

    “This baseless and absurd lawsuit is just a continuation of a pattern of disturbing behaviour. We will give it the minimum attention necessary, which is all it deserves,” Kump said. 

  • Cardi B wins million-dollar defamation suit against ‘malicious’ YouTuber

    By ANI

    WASHINGTON: Singer Cardi B has won a million-dollar defamation lawsuit against a YouTuber who was sued by the star for hurting her reputation by posting fake content on the internet.

    As per The Hollywood Reporter, a federal jury on Monday sided with Cardi B on her accusations that a YouTuber named Latasha Kebe waged a “malicious campaign” to hurt the superstar’s reputation, issuing a verdict that the woman had defamed the rapper and awarding the star more than USD 1 million in damages.

    Following a two-week trial that featured testimony from both women, the jury returned a verdict that Kebe was liable for defamation and two other forms of wrongdoing over her YouTube videos and other internet posts — which claimed that Cardi B had contracted herpes, among other unsavoury rumours.

    ALSO READ | Cardi B offers to pay funeral costs of Bronx fire Victims

    The Hollywood Reporter informed that Monday’s verdict has awarded the 29-year-old rapper USD 1.25 million in damages. The total amount could potentially end up higher, as per the outlet.

    Further proceedings that will kick off on Tuesday will decide whether Kebe owes additional punitive damages, or whether she must reimburse Cardi B for her legal expenses.

    For the uninformed, Cardi B, whose real name is Belcalis Almanzar, sued Kebe in 2019 over dozens of videos that contained shocking claims about the rapper saying she contracted herpes, she had been a prostitute, that she had cheated on her husband, she had done hard drugs and more.

    As per The Hollywood Reporter, a trial was held on January 10 in Georgia federal court, during which both women took the stand. Cardi B testified that she felt “suicidal” in the wake of Kebe’s videos, and said that “only an evil person could do that sh**.”

    Kebe initially admitted that she knowingly published lies about the rapper, but she later tried to walk back that statement when examined by her own attorneys.

    Ultimately, the jurors sided with Cardi B, as per the outlet.

    In addition to defamation, the jury also held Kebe liable for “invasion of privacy through portrayal in a false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

    The Hollywood Reporter informed that Kebe’s attorneys can challenge the verdict to the judge in the weeks ahead. If he upholds it, her attorneys can then appeal the verdict to a federal appeals court. 

  • FIR against lyricist Javed Akhtar over remark against RSS during interview

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: Mumbai police registered an FIR against lyricist Javed Akhtar on Monday over his alleged remark against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), an official said.

    The First Information Report (FIR) were registered at the Mulund police station on a complaint filed by city-based lawyer Santosh Dubey.

    “The FIR has been registered under Indian Penal Code Section 500 (punishment for defamation),” the official from Mulund police station said.

    The lawyer last month sent a legal notice to Akhtar for allegedly making “false and defamatory” remarks against the RSS in an interview to a news channel, and sought an apology from him over it.

    Akhtar (76) in a recent interview drew parallels between the Taliban and Hindu extremists.

    Dubey in his notice had claimed that by making such statements, Akhtar committed an offence under IPC Sections 499 (defamation) and 500 (punishment for defamation).

    “I had earlier sent a legal notice to Akhtar and asked him to apologise over his remark, but he fail to do so.

    Now, an FIR has been registered against him on my complaint,” the lawyer told PTI.

  • FIR against Assam teacher for ‘defaming’ PM Modi via social media

    By Express News Service
    GUWAHATI: An FIR was lodged against an Assam college teacher who allegedly defamed Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other politicians by posting their objectionable photos on the social media.

    One Snehangshu Chakraborty, who is a leader of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), lodged the FIR with the Silchar Sadar Police Station against Tamojit Saha. The accused teaches Bengali at a junior college in the southern Assam city.

    In the FIR, Chakraborty wrote that Saha had posted an image on Facebook and captioned it “Impact of farmers’ movement in Haryana”. The post had alleged objectionable photos of PM Modi, Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar and his deputy Dushyant Chautala.

    A case was registered under Sections 294 (obscene acts and songs) and 501 (printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act.

    The police said they were probing the case. The accused was yet to be arrested.

    The complainant as well as the members of ABVP demanded action against the teacher. They said he had demeaned Modi and the two Haryana politicians with his offensive post.