The Delhi High Court has permitted the publication, sale and circulation of Yes Man: The Untold Story of Rana Kapoor, while restraining the dissemination of four passages found to be prima facie derogatory towards former Yes Bank chief executive officer Rana Kapoor.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, in an 80-page judgment delivered on November 6, modified a July 2024 trial court order that had imposed a blanket restriction on the book's publication and distribution.
The High Court held that although four statements warranted interim protection of Kapoor's reputation, prohibiting the entire book would disproportionately interfere with the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
The order came on appeals filed by HarperCollins Publishers India Pvt Ltd and author Pavan Chand Lall against the trial court's injunction.
๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ
The High Court observed that the apprehended injury identified by the trial court arose from four specific statements, while the remaining contents had not been found, at the interim stage, to be defamatory or derogatory.
It therefore restricted the injunction to statements identified as (ii), (iv), (vii) and (x), allowing the rest of the book to remain available.
"The restraint, therefore, ought to be confined to the material in respect of which the prima facie finding has been sustained, namely statements (ii), (iv), (vii) and (x)," the court said.
The judge noted that such an approach would protect Kapoor's reputation against further dissemination of the disputed allegations without unnecessarily restricting the book's remaining contents.
While declining to interfere with the trial court's prima facie findings concerning the four passages, the High Court held that the consequential direction prohibiting publication, sale, distribution and circulation of the entire book could not be sustained.
The court clarified that its observations were confined to interim relief and did not constitute a final determination of the allegations or the defences raised by the parties.
๐ ๐ซ๐๐ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐๐๐ก ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง
Addressing the competing constitutional rights involved, the High Court emphasised that protection of an individual's reputation must be balanced against freedom of speech and expression.
"A total ban on the publication of the book, to the mind of this court, tilts the balance in the favour of one category of rights asserted, namely that of the right to social reputation, without addressing the right to freedom of speech and expression which is guaranteed by the Constitution," the judgment said.
The court observed that completely suppressing a literary work before the rival claims had been fully examined would amount to an extreme and unwarranted restriction.
It said the trial court appeared to have overlooked the necessity of balancing the rights asserted by both sides.
The appropriate course, the judge held, was to calibrate interim relief so that neither the right to reputation nor the right to free expression was unduly restricted.
The High Court further observed that the presence of potentially objectionable passages in a book did not automatically justify prohibiting the publication in its entirety.
Any restriction, it said, must bear a reasonable relationship to the nature and extent of the injury identified at the preliminary stage.
๐๐จ๐จ๐ค ๐จ๐ง ๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ง๐ค ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ
Published on December 22, 2020, Yes Man: The Untold Story of Rana Kapoor examines the life and career of Kapoor, particularly his role in the establishment, expansion and subsequent crisis of Yes Bank.
Kapoor, the bank's co-founder and former managing director and chief executive officer, had approached a trial court seeking a permanent injunction against the publisher and author.
He alleged that certain contents of the book, along with related articles and interviews, were defamatory and violated his rights to reputation, privacy and personality.
Kapoor also contended that the disputed material could prejudice his right to a fair trial.
The trial court subsequently passed an interim order in July 2024 restraining the book's publication and circulation, prompting the publisher and author to challenge the decision before the High Court.
๐๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ค๐๐ญ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐
The High Court concluded that the complete prohibition was not justified while the underlying defamation proceedings remained pending.
It held that interim restrictions should be limited to the material for which a prima facie case had been established rather than extending automatically to an entire publication.
The judgment effectively permits the publisher and author to resume the book's sale and circulation, subject to compliance with the restrictions concerning the four identified passages.
The substantive dispute over the alleged defamatory statements will continue before the appropriate court.
The ruling underscores the need for courts to adopt proportionate remedies in publication-related disputes, particularly when claims concerning personal reputation intersect with constitutionally protected freedom of expression.