Court restrains Shehla Rashid’s father from publishing defamatory content, says it infringers family’s privacy: Srinagar 

The court has restricted the estranged father and media outlets to publish or transmit any defamatory content against Rashid, her sister and their mother

Shehla Rashid’s father from publishing defamatory content,

The Srinagar Court has restrained Shehla Rashid’s estranged father and the media channels from publishing, telecasting or broadcasting matters that are defamatory, intrusive of her right to privacy or her right to live with dignity and honour.

Judge Fayaz Ahmad Qureshi granted interim relief to Shehla, her sister and mother in an injunction suit filed by them before the Small Causes Court. The Judge said, “…defendant no. 1(Abdul Rashid Shora, the father) is restrained from causing any interference in the life of the plaintiffs and shall abstain from publishing any material through media or other means which has the potential to cause harassment, agony and pain to the plaintiffs or which is defamatory in its nature.”

The order also said, “The defendants 2-8 (media outlets, social media companies like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google) are also restrained from publishing, telecasting or broadcasting any mater with respect to the matrimonial life of the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 or which has the potential to defame the plaintiffs. For this purpose, the defendant shall take steps to suspend the links … which contain contents causing harassment and defamation to the plaintiffs.”

Judge Fayaz noted that even though in 2005, a court had passed an order restricting the father from harassing and torturing the plaintiffs (Shehla, her sister Asma and their mother Zubeida Akhter) and also awarded them fifteen thousand maintenance, Abdul “not only violated the order of Ld. JMIC Srinagar but intentionally and deliberately infringed various rights including the right to privacy and right to live a dignified life of the plaintiffs.”

Further the court noted that Abdul Shora made every attempt to defame and lower the repute of the plaintiffs by levelling “false and frivolous allegations” including branding the plaintiffs as antinational elements. It also strictly noted that an intimate matrimonial dispute between him and the wife was highlighted by him through social, electric and print media which was direct interference in the privacy of the plaintiffs.

The court opined that Abdul Rashid Shora’s conduct appeared to be unjustified and without any sound legal basis, opining that he seemed to have approached the press with a view to give hype to private matrimonial issues. Judge Fayaz was also of the prima facie opinion that Shora had approached the DGP with a view to malign the three plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the permanent and prohibitory injunction was granted and the court added that the media outlets had no legal justification to highlight a private issue between the plaintiffs and Shora, when the matter is being dealt with by a court.

Judge Fayaz however, gave liberty to the defendants/non-applicants to approach it for modification, alteration or cancellation of the restraining order by the next date of hearing on December 30, 2020.

The order may be read here:



Shehla Rashid reveals domestic abuse history of father

State cannot act in misogynistic way: Himachal Pradesh HC



Related Articles