1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners/plaintiffs.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking for an interim injunction directing the Respondents 1 and 2 and their representatives and all other persons claiming through them to forthwith block the URL “https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgy8bw/ climate-yoga-celebrity-sadhguru-india-willsmith-trevor-noah” pending disposal of the main suit.

3. Perused the affidavit of the petitioner No.1. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 is nomepratl voluntecr Organization registered as Public Charitable Trust, that petitioner No.1 has dedicated mission towards raising human consciousness and fostering global harmony through individual transformation, that petitioner No.1 has a volunteer base of Organization of 11 million volunteers across 300 centers sordid and enjoys much reputation, that petitioner No. 1 is running yoga centre in Labbipet Vijayawada that petitioner No.2 is another volunteer based organization registered s public charitable trust and implementing varied large scale human service projects and manned by approximately 2 million volunteers and the substantive purpose behind the same to support for individual growth and restore the environment. It is further stated in the affidavit that the Respondent No.1 is the author of defamatory article, whereas Respondent No.2 is a digital media platform and is the publisher of the said article, that on 23.06.2022 the defamatory article authored by Respondent No.1 was published by Respondent No.2 on its platform i.e. www.vice.com. bearing the eaption “This Climate Guru is a Celebrity in te US. In India, He’s Accused of Destroying a Forest” and the said platform is accessible and available clearly to all and is therefore accessible to any individual irrespective of their geographic location and would accordingly be available and accessible to any individual resident in any part of India including any individual resident within the jurisdiction of this court. It is further stated that the petitioner No.1 came to know about the publication of defamatory and offending article on the same date itself informed by one of their volunteers based out of Vijayawada and in turn duly informed the petitioner No.2 on the same date itself and on perusal of the publication it was clear that the entire publication is a false one and directly targeted at the petitioners and Sadguru which statements are contrary to even the materials available within the public domain itself and amounts to defamatory apparent on the face of it. It is further stated that the petitioners issued legal notice Dt. 08.06.2022 to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 through e-mails and they sought for 3 days time to issue reply and the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 issued reply stating that their article is a fair comment and asserted their right to maintain the said publication and denied the request made by the petitioners through their legal notice for withdrawal of the said publication. In the article it was published that 30 institutions built near and on forest land without any approval disturbing the critical elephant habitat and one of the biggest violators is the Petitioner No.1 but letter received from DFO, Coimbatore clearly shows that there was no encroachment and there was no any construction done either Upon any elephant corridor or upon any elephant habitat The petitioners contend that the Contents the articles published by the Respondents as narrated in the petition are not in any manner or form whatsoever a fair comment but rather a selective presentation of false assertions. The petitioners contend that the said publication is not a fair comment and it is nothing but a:defamatory comment against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, It is further stated that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 even after receiving the notice from the petitioners did not make any attempt to verify the authenticity of said imputations in the article published by them and hence the Respondents are liable for defaming the petitioners and hence, the petitioners filed the main suit seeking for a mandatory injunction directing the Respondent Nos. and 2 to remove the defamatory publication on the URL and also seeking for a permanent injunction restraining R1 and R2 from re-publishing the same and also seeking for damages to an extent of Rs.51,00,000/- and pending disposal of the main suit, the petitioners filed this petition seeking for an ad interim injunction directing the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, their representatives and all other persons through claiming through and under them to forthwith block URL

“https:/Www.vice.conV/en/article/xgy8bw/ clitate-yoga-celebrity-sadhguru-india-will-smith-tevor noah”

4. I have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the contents of the affidavit of Petitioner No.1. The petitioners filed the following documents in support of the petition referred supra.

1. Copy of the article published by the Respondents bearing the caption “This Climate Guru is a Celebrity in the US. In India, He’s Accused of Destroying a Forest.”

2. Copy of the e-mail sent to the Respondents with legal notice.

3. Copy of the reply issued by the Respondents and copy of the RTA Information received from the DFO, Coimbatore and the e-mails receive.| from Respondent No.1.

5. Copy of the article titled “This Climate uru is a Celebrity in the US. In India, He’s Accused of Destroying a Forest” prima facie shows that some defamatory allegations are made against the petitioners in the said article. Copy of notice issued to the Respondents prima facie shows that they have sent some material to the Respondents while denying the allegation made in the article-published by the respondants and requested the respondents to delete the defamatory article forthwith. Document No.5 is the anny of the e-mail issued by the Respondents to the petitioners in which they have stated that they are reviewing the centents of the notice issued by the petitioner and requested 3 days time to respond. Document No.6 is the reply issued by the Respondents to the notice issued by the petitioners in which they did not admit the contention of the petitioners in the notice and the Respondents in their reply further have started that they have not committed any acts of defamatory and refused to comply with the demands made by the petitioners in their notice and they did not agree to remove the publication article from the URL as demanded by the petitioners.

6. Considering the aforementioned documents, I am of the opinion that prima facie it appears that the respondents made certain allegations against the petitioners by publishing the article “This Climate Guru is a Celebrity in the US. In India, He’s Accused of Destroying a Forest” and did not remove the same from the URL referred in the petition inspite of objection raised by the petitioners. Admittedly, the Respondents have no right to make any allegations against the petitioners ‘without any basis and in the case on hand the petitioners prima facie establish that the Respondents failed to substantiate of their act in publishing the aforementioned article against the petitioners. The petitioners prima facie are able to show that the Respondents made defamatory publication against them and they failed to remove the same on their demand and as such I find a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. No doubt if the defamatory article published by the Respondents is continued in the URL address referred in the petition, certainly the reputation of the petitioners will be damaged. Though the Respondents are supporting their act in publishing the article on the pretext of fair comment, prima facie it appears that the respondents did not produce any document to support their contention. If the URL address in which the defamatory publication is made available is not blocked certainly everybody in the world will have access to the said article and in such a case much irreparable injury and damage will be caused to the reputation of the petitioners Hence, this court is of the opinion that balance of convenience and irreparable injury are in favour of the petitioners. This court further opine that if urgent notice is ordered, several viewers will read the publication and thereby much irreparable injury will be caused to the petitioners and as such this is a fit case where urgent notice is to be dispensed with and an exparte ad-interim injunction is to be granted. Accordingly, an ad-interim injunction is hereby granted against the Respondent Nos.1. and 2, their representatives and all other persons claiming through and under them and they are directed to block URL “This Climate Guru is a Celebrity in the US. In India, He’s Accused of Destroying a Forest” forthwith will Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. Issue urgent notice of the Respondents on process. Posted to 20-09-2022