Logo
Logo
DPDPA Sections DPDPA Rules BLOGS CASE LAWS Templates
  • DPDPA
  • 1. Right to Privacy Judgements
    • (a) MP Sharma v Satish Chandra
    • (b) Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh
    • (c) Govind v State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
    • (d) Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India
    • (e) People's Union For Civil Liberties V Union of India 1996
    • (f) R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
    • (g) Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 2019
  • 2. Right to be Forgotten judgments
    • (a) Zulfiqar Ahman Khan Vs. Ms. Quintillion
    • (b)Zorawar Singh Mundy Vs. Union of India
    • (c) ABC Vs. UOI & Ors
    • (d) Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave vs State Of Gujarat
    • (e) Sri Vasunathan vs Registrar General
    • (f) Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul vs State Of Odisha
  • 3. General Privacy Orders & Judgements
    • (a)First case which had held CDR is a Sensitive Personal Data
  • 4. DPDPA Orders
    • (Coming soon)
  • 5. DPDPA Appeals
    • (Coming soon)
  • 6. DPDPA Case Laws
    • (Coming soon)

Zulfiqar Ahman Khan Vs. Ms. Quintillion Business Media Pvt Ltd and Ors; CS (OS) 642 of 2018 (PDF)


In this case, the plaintiff, Zulfiqar Ahman Khan, who was the Managing Director of a media company, filed a defamation suit against Quintillion Business Media (Quint.com), an online news platform, seeking a permanent injunction to remove two articles published against him on October 12, 2018, and October 31, 2018. The articles were based on three sexual harassment charges received from anonymous individuals as part of the #MeToo movement. Khan argued that the allegations were baseless and had caused him significant personal and professional harm. He also claimed that Quint.com did not reach out to him before publishing the articles, resulting in a one-sided and defamatory narrative.

Quint.com, on the other hand, argued that they had a responsibility to report on the allegations and that they had taken steps to verify the information. They also argued that the articles were published in good faith and were fair comment on a matter of public interest.

The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, recognized Khan's right to reputation and privacy, as well as his right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone.

The court ordered Quint.com to remove the two articles and references to them from search engines, citing the potential for harm to Khan's reputation and the need to protect his privacy. The court also acknowledged the importance of freedom of speech and the media's role in reporting on matters of public interest, but emphasized that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against other important rights, such as the right to reputation and privacy. Sources and related content

← Previous Case
Next Case →

All Cases


Report error
Your message ×

Please keep in mind that this form is only for feedback and suggestions for improvement. Unfortunately, questions will not be answered.

0 of 1000 max characters

Logo

Site maintained by Advocate (Dr.) Prashant Mali for Public in General interest

Share: Facebook | Twitter | XING | LinkedIn | WhatsApp | E-Mail