The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International & Anr. delves into the concept of SLAPP in India, and has been cited with approval in many cases, including the Madras High Court’s ruling in Menaka & Co. v. Arappor Iyakkam. In this case, Tata Sons Limited (“Tata”) filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and a decree for damages to the extent of INR 10 crores against Greenpeace International (“Greenpeace”), a non-profit organisation.
The controversy revolved around the construction of a port in Orissa. Dharma Port Company (DPCL), a 50 – 50 joint venture of Larsen and Toubro Limited and Tata Steel Limited was awarded a concession by Government of Orissa to build and operate a port near river Dharma. Various objections regarding environmental protection, pollution, costal zone regulation etc. had been raised, considered and dealt by the appropriate regulatory authorities and appellate bodies seized of the matter. Greenpeace allegedly made an online game by the title “Turtle v. Tata”. It was alleged that a mere look at the defendant’s game’s screenshot revealed how they had unauthorizedly used the trademark “Tata” as well as “T” within a circle device without the permission of Tata, thereby infringing its trademark rights.
It was also alleged that Greenpeace has been maligning Tata’s reputation – reference was made to an article titled “Campaign 2.0: Turtle v Tata, the Game” published on 29 June 2010 in the Wall Street Journal, which stated “…The aim of the colourful and noisy video game is to help the yellow turtles eat as many little white dots as possible without running into Ratty (presumably after Ratan Tata, chairman of the Tata Group), matty, Natty or Tinku”. It was further alleged that Greenpeace was spreading defamatory remarks and statements about the Tatas, such as: “…while dodging the TATA demons if you eat a power pill, you will be gifted with super-turtle powers to vanquish the demons of development that are threatening your home.”
The Delhi High Court followed the principle in the English case of Bonnard v. Perryman wherein it was held that an injunction ought not to be granted unless the court was certain that the defendant would fail at trial (“Bonnard Principle”). The Court held that the Bonnard Principle is applicable to granting of injunctions against defamation claims as great value is attached to the freedom of speech and expression and “public debate and discussion on issues that concern people at large.” The Court identified the game created by Greenpeace as one seeking to address an issue of public concern. Since the Court was unable to determine the truth or falsehood of the publication, it opined that granting the injunction would only freeze public debate and would not be in public interest. Accordingly, the court dismissed the interim application seeking an injunction.
In the case of Crop Care Federation of India v. Rajasthan Patrika (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. (“Crop Care”), the plaintiff, a trade body representing insecticide manufacturers, claimed loss of reputation of such manufactures due to articles published by the defendants (Rajasthan Patrika, the editor, publisher and advisor thereof) in the newspaper “Rajasthan Patrika”. The defendants filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC for the rejection of the defamation suit. In rejecting the plaint, the Delhi High Court specifically classified the suit as SLAPP. The Court opined that the plaintiff’s choice of filing the suit in Delhi, in relation to publications in Rajasthan, raised doubt on the real motive behind the lawsuit. Further, the Court observed that the plaintiff in the present case did not appear to be genuinely aggrieved. According to the Court, the aggrieved party in such a case can only be a manufacturer directly affected and possessing a legitimate cause of action. Instead, the plaintiff is a trade body, possibly suggesting that its motivations are more aligned with protecting economic interests rather than addressing real harm. The Court identified the subject matter of the dispute, i.e., the use of pesticides and insecticides as a matter that ought to be open to public discourse and debate, and characterized the plaintiff’s action as an attempt at “intimidatory SLAPP litigation” to “plainly to stifle debate”.
Source: Barandbench
