'Why Go To Social Media?He Lost Job' : Supreme Court Affirms Order To Delete Woman's Post Alleging Molestation By Male Co-Passenger

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a special leave petition filed by a journalist challenging an interim injunction passed by the Delhi High Court directing her to take down a social media post which alleged that a male co-passenger sexually harassed her during a flight.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan declined to interfere with the interim order passed by the High Court.

Appearing for the journalist, counsel submitted that the petitioner was a 24-year-old journalist and survivor of sexual violence, and argued that the plaintiff (the man whose photo was published in the post) had rushed to the High Court to secure relief at the interim stage.

“I am a 24-year-old victim of sexual violence and a journalist. The perpetrator rushes to High Court and manages to get it at the interim stage,” counsel submitted.

Justice Nagarathna, however, questioned the petitioner's decision to make the allegation on social media.

“Why did you go to social media and expose yourself?” Justice Nagarathna asked.

The Court further noted the consequences of such public allegations, observing that the plaintiff had already suffered professional repercussions.

“He has lost his job. Don't go about spreading it everywhere. You go to social media, you say I am the victim and somebody is suspended from his job. Look at the consequences. Therefore, he says it is defamatory,” Justice Nagarathna observed.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court had incorrectly characterised the social media post as sensational, contending that the petitioner had merely stated facts and that defamation would require malice or demonstrable falsity. It was also submitted that an FIR had been lodged in connection with the allegations.

“I said nothing but the facts. For defamation it has to be malicious or palpably false. I filed an FIR,” counsel argued.

Justice Nagarathna responded by underlining that the right to reputation must also be considered, while indicating that the petitioner could contest the maintainability of the civil suit itself.

“There is a right to reputation. You get the suit dismissed,” the judge remarked.

After dictating the order dismissing the plea, Justice Nagarathna made further oral remarks on the broader implications of such allegations, saying that if such situations continued, segregation of men and women in public spaces might be suggested to avoid accusations.

“In theatres also we will have all women seats, all men's seats separated. In marriage halls all women on one side, all men on the other side, if this is the kind of allegations that are going to be made. What is this? You want bifurcation, we will pass that order as a guideline so that there is no perpetrator,” she said.

The case relates to a social media post made by the petitioner on March 11 that she was sexually harassed by the respondent during her flight from Mumbai to Delhi. The respondent then filed a defamation suit in the Delhi High Court and sought the deletion of the post as an interim measure.

The Division Bench of the High Court refused to interfere with the injunction granted by the Single Bench.

The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed that the X post, published on the day of the incident, had remained online for about 20 to 22 days and had already served whatever purpose it was intended to serve. Since the appellant had already lodged an FIR over the alleged sexual harassment, the temporary removal of the post would not prejudice her rights, the bench said.

Rejecting the free speech argument, the Court held that the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. It said there is a distinction between expressing an opinion about a personal experience and publishing allegations as though they are established facts, particularly when accompanied by the photograph of the accused person, creating a definitive impression of guilt before legal adjudication.

The bench said the Single Judge had attempted to balance the appellant's speech rights with the respondent's rights to reputation, privacy, and profession under Articles 21 and 19(1)(g). It found no reason to disturb that balance at the interim stage.

Case :  KHANSA JUNED v. NIDISH GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR AND ORS. | SLP(C) No. 18051-18052/2026