NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court Wednesday questioned the owner of an anonymous Instagram account that has levelled sexual harassment allegations against well-known artist Subodh Gupta.
During the hearing, the HC was surprised to learn that the anonymous owner of the handle “Herdsceneand” is not the purported victim who has accused Gupta, but still didnt want the identity to be made public. On being probed further, the owner of the Instagram account said it serves as a “whistleblower” that provides a neutral platform to bring out instances of sexual harassment in the art world, including to the person who aired the allegation without revealing her identity.
But the court remained unconvinced and directed the account owners lawyer to seek instructions by the next date if the person would like to represent all those women who have used the platform to share their allegations, or the owner would furnish the identity of these women so that they can be made parties to the suit.
Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw also questioned the “locus” of two independent organisations that approached court seeking to be heard as a party in the defamation suit filed by Gupta against the Instagram handle.
The HC tested the claims of the two organisations that the case relates to “public interest” and therefore they should be also heard as a party in the defamation suit. While the Culture Workers Support Trust argued that the matter affects the entire art world, Justice Endlaw wondered if one organisation can claim to speak on behalf of the art fraternity.
“We cant start on an impleadment spree. What is the art world according to you? Can one person claim to represent it? This is a suit, not a public interest litigation. You have that remedy of PIL if you are really concerned. Is the idea to only litigate or do you really want to do something good? Your objective might be right but your effort is misguided,” Justice Endlaw said.
The Indian Journalists Union (IJU) also sought to be heard, claiming that the ban on news articles relating to Gupta from the Google search engine affected the rights of the publications also. The HC, however, indicated it would examine the argument, cautioning that an organisation or reporter have a right to report but only as long as court permits.
“You dont have a better right than the parties, or do you just want to create a scandal? Once between two parties in a suit there is a bar, where do you come into the picture?” the court said. Justice Endlaw, however, allowed the IJU to furnish a list of such articles it feels have been censored due to courts injunction and Read More – Source
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court Wednesday questioned the owner of an anonymous Instagram account that has levelled sexual harassment allegations against well-known artist Subodh Gupta.
During the hearing, the HC was surprised to learn that the anonymous owner of the handle “Herdsceneand” is not the purported victim who has accused Gupta, but still didnt want the identity to be made public. On being probed further, the owner of the Instagram account said it serves as a “whistleblower” that provides a neutral platform to bring out instances of sexual harassment in the art world, including to the person who aired the allegation without revealing her identity.
But the court remained unconvinced and directed the account owners lawyer to seek instructions by the next date if the person would like to represent all those women who have used the platform to share their allegations, or the owner would furnish the identity of these women so that they can be made parties to the suit.
Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw also questioned the “locus” of two independent organisations that approached court seeking to be heard as a party in the defamation suit filed by Gupta against the Instagram handle.
The HC tested the claims of the two organisations that the case relates to “public interest” and therefore they should be also heard as a party in the defamation suit. While the Culture Workers Support Trust argued that the matter affects the entire art world, Justice Endlaw wondered if one organisation can claim to speak on behalf of the art fraternity.
“We cant start on an impleadment spree. What is the art world according to you? Can one person claim to represent it? This is a suit, not a public interest litigation. You have that remedy of PIL if you are really concerned. Is the idea to only litigate or do you really want to do something good? Your objective might be right but your effort is misguided,” Justice Endlaw said.
The Indian Journalists Union (IJU) also sought to be heard, claiming that the ban on news articles relating to Gupta from the Google search engine affected the rights of the publications also. The HC, however, indicated it would examine the argument, cautioning that an organisation or reporter have a right to report but only as long as court permits.
“You dont have a better right than the parties, or do you just want to create a scandal? Once between two parties in a suit there is a bar, where do you come into the picture?” the court said. Justice Endlaw, however, allowed the IJU to furnish a list of such articles it feels have been censored due to courts injunction and Read More – Source
