New Delhi: The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Wikimedia Foundation have submitted in a Delhi court that it doesn’t have jurisdiction to try a defamation swimsuit filed by BJP chief Binay Kumar Singh. Singh is looking for to restrain them from publishing the BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi or every other materials associated to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).Â
Earlier on May 3, the court had issued summons to the BBC, the Wikimedia Foundation and the US-based digital library Internet Archive after Singh filed a swimsuit. According to complainant Vinay Kumar Singh, the two-part BBC documentary “India: The Modi Question” had defamed organisations just like the BJP, RSS and VHP.
‘Court does not have jurisdiction to try present matter’
“Counsel for defendants no. 1 (BBC) and 2 (Wikimedia Foundation) submit that they are appearing under protest as they have not been served properly as defendants…are foreign entities. Further, counsel for defendants…submit that this court does not have the jurisdiction to try the present matter,” Additional District Judge (ADJ) Ruchika Singla famous.
The court additional famous the submissions by the counsel for the US-based digital library Internet Archive (defendant no 3), in accordance to which, the content material was already eliminated and in case the complainant had every other objections concerning the identical, it will do the needful.Â
After the BBC advocate advised the court that she didn’t obtain the copies of the summons, the counsel for the complainant mentioned the copy could possibly be provided within the court itself, the choose famous. “…which is not accepted by counsel for defendant no 1 stating that the same shall be prejudicial to her rights in view of the Hague Convention. She needs time to argue on this point,” the court mentioned. “Further, the copies are supplied to defendant no 2 but it is submitted by the counsel that the same is also not as per law as per the Hague Convention,” the court mentioned.
Next listening to on May 26
The counsels for BBC and Wikimedia Foundation additionally said that that they had to attend the cremation ceremony of their senior who had expired final evening. However, on request, the court adjourned the matter to be heard on May 26. “Hence, on request, the matter is adjourned for arguments on May 26,” the choose mentioned.
Earlier, the court was advised that although the documentary has been banned by the federal government, a Wikipedia web page devoted to the sequence offers hyperlinks to watch it and that the content material remains to be obtainable on Internet Archive.Â
‘Documentary made to defame RSS, VHP’
Singh, who claims to be the state govt committee member of the Jharkhand BJP and an energetic volunteer of the RSS and VHP, moved the swimsuit by means of advocate Mukesh Sharma stating that the claims within the documentary towards the RSS and Vishwa Hindu Parishad are made with the intention of defaming the organisations and its volunteers.
“The allegations made against the RSS and VHP are motivated by a malicious intent to defame the organisations and its millions of members/volunteers. Such unfounded allegations are not only baseless but also have the potential to damage the reputation and image of the RSS, VHP and its millions of members/volunteers, who have committed themselves to upholding the cultural, social and national values of India,” the swimsuit states.
The two-volume documentary sequence that has already been banned is however simply accessible within the public area on Wikimedia and the Internet Archive, Singh has argued.
“The Defendant No.1 (BBC), strategically and purposefully disseminated unfounded rumours without verifying the authenticity of the claims. Furthermore, the accusations made therein foster animosity between multiple faith communities, in particular Hindus and Muslims,” the swimsuit says.
‘Complainant seeks unconditional apology by defendants’
Singh has additionally sought an order of unconditional apology by the defendants, to him, the RSS, and the VHP for the allegedly “libellous and defamatory content” that was included within the two-volume documentary sequence.
The swimsuit states: “The plaintiff has worked assiduously over decades to build his career and reputation, and if this matter is left unchecked, it will permanently demolish the plaintiff’s hard-earned reputation and career. Therefore, even though the plaintiff is a champion of free speech, he is compelled to seek an immediate injunction to safeguard his reputation and livelihood.”
(With companies enter)
