THE JURISPRUDENCE OF SMEAR CAMPAIGNS: CONSTITUTIONAL, CIVIL, AND REGULATORY RESPONSES ACROSS COMMON LAW JURISDICTIONS
SUBJECT: SMEAR CAMPAIGNS AND THE LAW: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIA, THE UNITED STATES, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND SINGAPORE It is obvious that, youths learn from what is talked in public. The icons are leaders, actors, politicians and those who are in public life. It’s easy in India to smear someone’s reputation. Reason is weak provisions. In India opposition leader who come from high profile family uses all his conveniences and power to disrepute and threaten all Competent Authorities. But he escapes without a scratch. Dialogues in Hindi movies like “kya karlega tera kanoon” also played important role. In my childhood we were taught by mothers not to say insulting or false about others. It was considered as sin. However it appears that deity of Karma is also tired of dealing with falsehood and false public allegations. There is a wait list for justice there too. A famous bhajan ” ninda a kare keni re” loved by Bapu is forgotten. With this common parlance discussion lets turn to the legal discussion. USA: UAE-Backed Dark PR (2023): The United Arab Emirates (UAE) hired Swiss firm Alp Services to conduct a covert, multi-year smear campaign targeting a US-based businessman, Hazim Nada, and his commodities-trading firm, Lord Energy. The campaign manipulated markets and successfully forced the company into liquidation by spreading false allegations of terrorist. ( check https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/can-an-american-hold-the-united-arab-emirates-responsible-for-a-smear-campaign) Martin Luther King Jr. FBI Surveillance (1960s): The FBI under J. Edgar Hoover orchestrated a massive, covert operation to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., labelling him a subversive. The agency sent defamatory packages, wiretapped his communications, and urged him to commit suicide to silence his activism. ( check: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-releases-report-fbi-crusade-against-martin-luther-king-jr-urges-ashcroft-not ) Planned Parenthood Foetal Tissue Controversy (2015): Anti-abortion groups released deceptively edited videos to accuse Planned Parenthood of illegally selling foetal tissue for profit. The healthcare organization denounced the effort as a fabricated smear campaign designed to cut off their federal funding. ( check https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34396751) UNITED KINGDOM: The Sir David Attenborough Climate Campaign (2019–2023): Following the release of the Netflix documentary Our Planet, which featured footage of Pacific walruses falling to their deaths, climate change deniers initiated a widespread smear campaign against Attenborough. The attackers falsely alleged that he and the production crew fabricated the tragedy to artificially push climate change narratives. (https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/climate-change-deniers-continue-smear-campaign-against-sir-david-attenborough/) The Labour Together Corporate Intelligence Report (2024–2026): In a major political controversy, it was revealed that the UK think tank Labour Together commissioned a US public relations firm (APCO) to compile a 58-page report, codenamed “Operation Cannon”. The report targeted journalists at the Sunday Times who were investigating the group’s campaign funding and attempted to discredit them by alleging foreign interference and making personal attacks. SINGAPORE Singtel vs. Telco Rivals (2015) The Incident: Telecommunications giant Singtel and social media agency Gushcloud were exposed for running an orchestrated online smear campaign against rival telcos StarHub and M1. Details: Bloggers were paid and incentivized to fabricate complaints and criticize the network connections of the rival telcos. Resolution: Following whistleblowing by blogger Xiaxue, Singtel’s CEO publicly apologized, the responsible employees were fired, and the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) issued a stern warning to the telco. (check https://www.campaignasia.com/article/ethical-crackdown-regulating-singapores-influencer-scene/2xnaatoej5nqkwmj28qr5s2lyl) […]
Read more
CAN A COURT STOP A PARTY FROM SPEAKING? LESSONS FROM LILAVATI TRUST v. HDFC BANK
INTRODUCTION The Bombay High Court recently dealt with an important issue arising in a high-profile dispute between the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and HDFC Bank. The Trust instituted a defamation suit against HDFC Bank and its officials and sought interim relief restraining the defendants from making further statements allegedly affecting the reputation of the Trust and its trustees. The Court declined to grant the interim injunction. Although the final rights of the parties will be decided at trial, the order raises an important question: Can a person obtain a court order preventing another person from speaking merely because the statements are alleged to be defamatory? The answer, according to long-settled principles of Indian law, is generally no. WHY IS THIS CASE IMPORTANT? Many litigants believe that once a defamation suit is filed, the Court will immediately restrain the opposite party from making further statements. However, Indian courts have consistently adopted a cautious approach while granting injunctions in defamation matters. An injunction restricting speech is considered a serious remedy because it directly affects the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Consequently, courts insist upon a very high threshold before issuing what is effectively a “gag order”. THE REAL ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT The dispute before the Court was not whether the statements were ultimately true or false. The issue was much narrower: Here are the Prayers sought: the prayers in the Suit that forms the basis of IA 3095 are extracted below: i. A Decree may be passed for Permanent Perpetual Injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants thereby restraining the Defendants, their representatives, employees, agents, heirs, or any other person from vilifying ,maligning, tarnishing, levelling scathing allegations and casting aspersions upon the reputation, good will and image of the Plaintiffs and family through any medium whatsoever; ii. The Defendants and their representatives may be permanently restrained from circulating/publishing/ uploading any defamatory content harming/injuring or damaging the reputation of the Plaintiffs on any social media intermediaries; iii. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the Defendants, their representatives, employees, agents, heirs, or any other person from vilifying, maligning, tarnishing, levelling scathing allegations and casting aspersions upon the reputation, good will and image of the Plaintiffs and family through any medium whatsoever; iv. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Defendants and media channels including the X Corp/Defendant No. 5 (X. Com, formerly known as Twitter) and Meta Platforms Inc. (FaceBook)/ Defendant No. 6 to remove all defamatory and libelous articles/materials from all accounts, which has been published in any form against the Plaintiff and Mr. Prashant Mehta and his family; v. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Defendant No.1 i.e., the HDFC Bank to remove the Media Statement and the Press Release from the website of theDefendant No. 1 Bank (which are accessible at)i.e.,https://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/about-us/news-room/press-release/2025/q2/media-statement and https://www.hdfcbank.com/ vi. That this Hon’ble Court […]
Read more