After her businessman’s husband, Raj Kundra, was arrested on charges of creating and distributing pornographic content, the actress accused 29 media outlets and media houses of “false reports and malicious intent in her image.” I filed a lawsuit.
However, Judge GS Patel, who was listening to the case, seemed to ask the actress and her team of lawyers more questions than to give in to their wishes.
“How defamatory is this? If you can’t say anything good about Shilpa Shetty, don’t say anything,” said Judge Patel, Shilpa Shetty’s lawyers, Billendra Saraf and Avinab. Pointed out Chandra Chud. “It’s overwhelming. Your prayer to oversee your edits is dangerous. You’re seeking compensation from everyone and John Doe. How does it work?”
By the way, Silpa had already notified websites, channels and strangers. Some of them even deleted their content before the court hearing. However, the plea also sought a provisional injunction against the defendant.
Noting that some of the defendants deleted the content and would not upload it anymore, Judge Patel also said that reports on police sources or reports that Silpa cried were not defamation. “Reportage on what police sources said is by no means defamatory by definition! Not by law!” He said.
Finally, the lawyer discussed the privacy part of keeping what happened between the wife and husband secret. In response, the judge said, “That part is protected by her right to privacy, in order to balance it with her right to privacy, under the broad protection granted by freedom of the press. However, ignoring the constitutional implications of privacy also means that if a person is a public person, he or she is considered to have sacrificed his or her right to privacy. I can’t do that. “
“Directing edited content is dangerous”
Source link “Directing edited content is dangerous”