Delhi’s Rohini Court on Friday, 7 July issued fresh summons to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Wikimedia Foundation and U.S.-based digital library Internet Archive over the two-part documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
They were served the summons through the Department of Legal Affairs under the Union Ministry of Law and Justice in connection with a defamation lawsuit brought by Bharatiya Janata Party leader Binay Kumar Singh, who sought a restraining order to prevent the broadcast of the “India: The Modi Question” series.
The accused are foreign entities, therefore the notices must be served in accordance with the rules established by the Delhi High Court, as stated by additional district judge Ruchika Singla of the Rohini court.
Under the Hague Convention, the court had reserved its verdict on the point of delivery of notices on 26th May. After hearing the arguments, the court observed that the parties to the lawsuit are bound by the Hague Convention because all pertinent countries are signatories.
The judge ruled, “It is clear that as per the rules formulated under the Hague Convention and by the Government of India, the summons/notices in foreign countries can be effected only through the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, which has admittedly not been done in the present case.”
An objection was raised during the previous hearing of the case on 3rd May that the accused, who are foreign corporations with offices in the United States and the United Kingdom, could only be served in accordance with the approved procedure.
The attorneys for BBC and Wikimedia Foundation had informed the court that the defamation lawsuit against them was not properly served and that the latter lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
They claimed that in compliance with the Hague Convention, service on a foreign entity had to be made in conformity with the established procedures.
She further continued, “Hence, it is directed that the summons be issued afresh to the defendants on the filing of process fee within seven days to be served through the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice as per rules.”
The court also took note of a circular from the Delhi High Court, dated 13 September 2011, which made reference to an office memorandum from the Department of Legal Affairs (Judicial Section), Union Ministry of Law and Justice, dated August 18 of the same year.
It directed that the Hague Convention’s provisions apply to the service of summons or notices abroad. The court emphasised that these summonses or notices could only be delivered in line with the requirements of the ministry’s Department of Legal Affairs.
It also rejected the claim that because the defendants had previously retained solicitors who had been in court, service had already been made and thus the improper service defence was inadmissible at this time. It declared that the summons must be served on the defendant in keeping with the standard protocol and that this obligation cannot be waived by the counsel’s filing of the “vakalatnama.” The matter is now listed for further hearing on 18th November.
A civil defamation suit was filed by BJP functionary Binay Kumar Singh seeking a permanent injunction order to disallow the three organisations, BBC, Wikimedia Foundation, and Internet Archives from publishing the banned BBC documentary series on the 2002 Gujarat riots, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the state’s chief minister.
According to the lawsuit, the allegations made in the documentary against the Rashtriya Sawayamsevak Sangh and Vishva Hindu Parishad are made with the intention of defaming the organisations and those who work for them. The two-volume documentary series, per the BJP leader, who describes himself as an active volunteer for the RSS and VHP, is still easily accessible in the public domain on Wikimedia and Internet Archive.
In addition, he has asked the defendants to offer an unconditional apology to him, the RSS and the Vishva Hindu Parishad for the “libellous and defamatory content” that was published in the two-volume documentary series as well as pass a decree of damages of Rs 10,00,000 in favour of himself and against the former.
The Government of India had in January of this year invoked emergency laws to impose a ban on the BBC documentary.
