KB-2023-003636 - [2025] EWHC 2043 (KB)

The claimant seeks damages in libel and under the Data Protection Act 2018 in respect of an article written by the second defendant and published by the first defendant. The article (see paragraph 33 below) said the claimant was a street agitator who, in the context of disturbances “between local Muslims and Hindus”, whipped up his followers and made disparaging comments about Hindus.

An important part of the second defendant’s basis for what he wrote is a video of a speech given by the claimant in Leicester to a large group of (largely masked) men. In the course of that speech he said, “if they believe in reincarnation… what a humiliation and pathetic thing for them to be reincarnated into some pathetic weak cowardly people like that. I’d rather be an animal. I’d rather be reincarnated as a grasshopper…” (see paragraph 31 below). The claimant says it is clear from the context that he was not talking about Hindus, but the Hindutva. He says that the article fundamentally distorted what he said, that it is thereby untrue, that it is defamatory of him, and that despite him repeatedly pointing that out it has not been withdrawn. There is a dispute between the parties as to the meaning of the article, including whether it identifies the claimant, but, if it does, it is common ground that the article is defamatory of the claimant at common law. The defendants accept that the claimant used the word “Hindutva” and not “Hindus”, but they maintain that the meaning conveyed by the article is substantially true. They deny that the claimant has suffered serious harm.