NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has ruled that stirring the embers of the “MeToo” campaign by continuously republishing articles based on sexual harassment complaints, where women remained anonymous, violates a man’s right to privacy, inherent to which are his right to be forgotten and be left alone.

“The ‘ MeToo ’ campaign cannot become a ‘sullying you too’ campaign forever. If republication is permitted to go on continuously, the plaintiff’s rights would be severely jeopardised,” Justice Pratibha M Singh said while granting a stay on the republication of articles against the managing director of a media house. A well-known digital platform published two articles in October last year against the man on the basis of harassment complaints received by it as part of the “MeToo” campaign.

The three individuals who levelled charges against the man remained anonymous. The man had moved the HC against republication of the same articles claiming that he was a well-known media personality and had undergone enormous torture and grief due to the “baseless allegations”.

On December 14 last year, the HC had restrained republication of the articles and five days later, the web portal and author of the articles undertook to take down the two articles. On May 9, the managing director’s counsel pointed out to the HC that the articles published on the web portal had been picked up by another digital platform.

Justice Singh said in her order, “The allegations having been made as part of the ‘MeToo’ campaign and the three individuals having chosen to remain anonymous and the publisher of the articles having chosen to pull down the said articles, further republication of the same is liable to be restrained. The campaign also ought not to become an unbridled and unending campaign against an individual with other electronic/digital portals or platforms picking up the pulled down content through archived material.”

“The original publisher having already agreed to pull down the articles, this court having directed that the same ought not to be republished, the plaintiff (managing director of media house) has a right to ensure that the articles are not published on multiple electronic/digital platforms as that would create a permanent atmosphere of suspicion and animosity towards the plaintiff and also severely prejudice his personal and professional life.”

The single-judge bench of the HC said, “Recognising the plaintiff’s right to privacy, of which the ‘right to be forgotten’ and the ‘right to be left alone’ are inherent aspects, it is directed that any republication of the content of the originally impugned articles dated October 12, 2018, and October 31, 2018, or any extracts or excerpts thereof, as also modified versions thereof, on any print or digital/electronic platform shall stand restrained during pendency of the present suit.”

