New Delhi: The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Wikimedia Foundation have submitted in a Delhi court that it does not have jurisdiction to try a defamation suit filed by BJP leader Binay Kumar Singh. Singh is seeking to restrain them from publishing the BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi or any other material related to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
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 suit. According to complainant Vinay Kumar Singh, the two-part BBC documentary "India: The Modi Question" had defamed organisations 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 noted.
The court further noted the submissions by the counsel for the US-based digital library Internet Archive (defendant no 3), according to which, the content was already removed and in case the complainant had any other objections regarding the same, it would do the needful.
After the BBC advocate told the court that she did not receive the copies of the summons, the counsel for the complainant said the copy could be supplied in the court itself, the judge noted. "...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 said. "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 said.
Next hearing on May 26
The counsels for BBC and Wikimedia Foundation also stated that they had to attend the cremation ceremony of their senior who had expired last night. 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 judge said.
Earlier, the court was told that though the documentary has been banned by the government, a Wikipedia page dedicated to the series provides links to watch it and that the content is still available on Internet Archive.
'Documentary made to defame RSS, VHP'
Singh, who claims to be the state executive committee member of the Jharkhand BJP and an active volunteer of the RSS and VHP, moved the suit through advocate Mukesh Sharma stating that the claims in the documentary against 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 suit states.
The two-volume documentary series that has already been banned is nevertheless easily accessible in the public domain 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 suit says.
'Complainant seeks unconditional apology by defendants'
Singh has also 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 in the two-volume documentary series.
The suit 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 agencies input)
