CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has refused to grant mandatory interim injunction against two research groups — India Research Watch and Retraction Watch — against publishing articles criticising and questioning the claims of Saveetha Institute for Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS) on its academic and research performance.
It held that an injunction should not be granted if the defendant has pleaded truth as a defence. But, the court directed the research groups to obtain a response from the the institute before publishing such articles.
The order was passed by Justice P Dhanabal recently on the petitions filed by the institute seeking restrain these two groups from publishing defamatory contents against the institute.
Alleging that India Research Watch and Retraction Watch have been targeting private institutions to project research works in negative light, SIMTAS said these organisations have published “biased” articles misrepresenting facts about the institute’s retraction rates, international collaborations and academic and research achievements causing “significant reputational harm.”
Moreover, social media platforms were used to mock student celebrations and institutional achievements, it said, and sought the court to restrain them from circulating such messages, remove all defamatory articles and direct them to issue a formal interim public apology.
Advocate Suhrith Parthasarathy, appearing for the respondents, submitted that two internationally reputed journals, including ‘Science’ and ‘Nature’ have published articles flagging alleged research malpractices and the institute did not initiate any legal action against them.
All the statements made by the respondents are truthful and based on concrete data published purely in public interest and constitute fair comment, he averred.
Referring to this submission, the judge said, “It is a matter of trial and needs elaborate evidence. The respondents already filed their written statement and thereby, after trial only those prayers for mandatory injunction and direction to remove articles can be considered.”
However, the judge directed the respondents not to publish any statements regarding activities of the institute without causing a notice seeking its response. If any response is received within 72 hours, they may make the statement but shall publish the response prominently. If no such response is received within 72 hours, they shall proceed to publish.