The
Bombay
High
Court
on
Friday
noted
that
passing
a
blanket
gag
order
on
the
media
against
reporting
anything
against
Bollywood
actor
Shilpa
Shetty,
wife
of
arrested
businessman
Raj
Kundra,
shall
have
a
“chilling
effect
on
the
freedom
of
press”
and
said
there
is
a
judicial
limit
on
what
can
be
construed
as
good
or
bad
journalism.
Justice
Gautam
Patel,
however,
directed
that
three
videos
uploaded
on
YouTube
channels
of
three
private
persons
be
deleted
and
not
uploaded
again
as
they
were
“malicious
and
with
not
even
a
slightest
attempt
to
investigate
into
the
truth
of
the
matter”.
The
court
noted
that
the
freedom
of
press
has
to
be
balanced
with
the
right
to
privacy
of
an
individual.
The
three
videos
made
comments
on
Shetty's
moral
standing
and
went
on
to
question
the
quality
of
her
parenting
following
the
arrest
of
her
husband
Raj
Kundra
in
a
case
related
to
alleged
production
and
streaming
of
pornographic
content
on
apps.
The
court
was
hearing
a
suit
filed
by
Shetty
against
alleged
defamatory
articles
published
against
her
and
family
after
the
arrest
of
her
husband
on
July
19.
Kundra
(45)
is
currently
in
jail
under
judicial
custody.
Shetty,
in
an
interim
application,
had
sought
for
media
to
be
restrained
from
publishing
any
“incorrect,
false,
malicious
and
defamatory”
content.
Justice
Patel,
however,
noted
that
the
plaintiff's
prayer
seeking
media
to
be
restrained
will
have
a
“chilling
effect
on
the
freedom
of
press”.
“There
is
a
judicial
limit
on
what
is
good
or
bad
journalism
as
this
comes
very
close
to
freedom
of
press,”
the
court
said.
The
court
noted
that
the
articles
referred
to
by
Shetty
in
her
suit
do
not
seem
to
be
defamatory.
“It
cannot
be
like
if
you
(media)
are
not
going
to
write
or
say
anything
nice
about
me
(Shetty)
then
do
not
say
anything
at
all.
How
can
this
be?”
Justice
Patel
said.
The
court
noted
that
most
of
the
articles
referred
to
in
the
suit,
including
one
that
claimed
that
"Shetty
cried
and
fought
with
her
husband
Kundra" when
he
was
brought
to
their
house
by
the
police
for
joint
interrogation
was
based
on
what
police
sources
said.
“Reportage
of
something
based
on
what
police
sources
have
said
is
not
defamatory.
If
this
had
happened
in
the
four
walls
of
your
house
with
no
one
around
then
the
issue
is
different.
But
this
has
happened
in
the
presence
of
outsiders.
How
is
this
defamation?”
Justice
Patel
said.
The
court
added
that
at
the
most
this
shows
that
the
plaintiff
(Shetty)
is
human
and
there
is
nothing
wrong
with
it.
“You
chose
a
life
in
the
public
eye
then
all
this
will
come
as
part
of
the
territory.
Your
life
is
under
a
microscope,”
Justice
Patel
said.
Shetty's
counsel
Birendra
Saraf
also
took
objection
to
an
article
published
on
a
website,
'Peeping
Moon',
in
which
it
was
claimed
that
Shetty
"destroyed
evidence"
in
the
case
in
which
her
husband
has
been
arrested.
Justice
Patel,
however,
said
he
was
not
inclined
to
direct
for
this
particular
article
to
be
taken
down
as
the
material
in
it
was
prima
facie
drawn
from
an
understanding
of
what
the
police
said
or
indicated.
“No
part
of
this
order
shall
be
construed
as
a
gag
on
the
media,”
Justice
Patel
observed.
The
actor's
application
also
sought
damages
of
Rs
25
crore,
stating
that
the
respondents
(several
media
publications
and
social
media
sites
like
Google,
Facebook
and
YouTube)
are
causing
irreparable
loss
and
damage
to
her
reputation.
In
her
plea,
Shetty
sought
directions
against
social
media
platforms
like
Google,
YouTube
and
Facebook
to
remove
all
defamatory
content
related
to
her
and
family.
To
this,
Justice
Patel
said,
“Your
prayer
seeking
for
social
media
platforms
like
Google,
YouTube
and
Facebook
to
exercise
control
over
editorial
content
is
dangerous.”
The
HC
directed
all
defendants
in
the
suit
to
file
their
affidavits
and
posted
the
matter
for
further
hearing
on
September
20.