Delhi court orders OpIndia to remove articles on Swati Chaturvedi
A Delhi court directed OpIndia to remove two articles about journalist Swati Chaturvedi, stating continued publication could cause irreparable injury to her reputation while the defamation suit is pending. The court found the articles' source material insufficient to support the claims and noted one serious allegation (extortion rackets) was not substantiated. OpIndia argued free speech, but the court allowed temporary removal during the trial.
Why It Matters
The ruling illustrates how Indian courts balance freedom of the press with protection of reputation, and signals the use of interim orders to restrain online publications during defamation proceedings.
Timeline
2 Events
Media reporting on the court order
A news article reports that a Delhi court directed OpIndia to remove two articles about Swati Chaturvedi, noting the court’s reasoning on irreparable injury to the plaintiff’s reputation during pendency of the suit and accepting that the defendants argued free speech concerns. The court directed removal or blocking of the pieces during the suit, while allowing the defendants to pursue the merits of their claims at trial.
Court order dated May 13, 2026 directs OpIndia to remove two articles on Swati Chaturvedi
Delhi district judge Meenu Kaushik of Patiala House Court issued an order dated May 13 directing OpIndia to remove or block two articles about journalist Swati Chaturvedi while the defamation suit is pending. The court noted that the articles’ source material did not prima facie support the claims and that several statements could not be linked to material in the public domain. It highlighted that one of the more serious accusations—running extortion rackets—appears unsupported by the material on record. The court observed that as a journalist and public commentator, Chaturvedi’s professional reputation is of paramount importance and that continued publication could cause irreparable injury. The order also stated that temporarily taking down the articles would not prejudice the defendants, who can still seek to establish the truth at trial. Chaturvedi is represented by advocate Akshat Gupta.