We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
The Delhi High Court's ex parte orders directing removal of online content in a series of defamation cases including the defamation case filed by Hardeep Puri 's daughter in connection with Epstein related allegations, and the case of the lady who accused a BJP leader of complicity in the murder of Ankita Bhandari etc, raise troubling concerns. The law cannot be that the Court will direct removal of alleged defamatory content ex parte on the first hearing itself without hearing the Defendants or their defence and without recording a finding that the allegations are false. The law is that truth is a defence to a suit for defamation. Once the content is removed, the Suit might as well be decreed. The loss to the defendant and the defendant's right to freedom of speech already stands taken away once an exparte removal of content order is passed.
What am I missing here.