Retweeting Defamatory Content Is “Publication", Aggrieved Can Decide Which Retweet Caused More Harm To Reputation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that every retweet of defamatory content on social media would amount to “publication” for attracting the offence of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.These observations came in a plea for quashing summons issued to CM Arvind Kejriwal, accused of the offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC for retweeting a publication on 'X' (Twitter) by Youtuber Dhruv Rathee wherein Rathee claimed that members of the BJP IT Cell had paid money to a third party to have him defamed. The complaint against Kejriwal had been filed by Vikas Sanskrityayan, founder of the social media page, “I support Narendra Modi.”Pronouncing the judgment on the aspect of criminal liability attached to the act of retweeting, a single bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the plea and said that it is for the aggrieved person to decide which retweet caused more harm to his or her reputation and lowered the moral or intellectual character or credibility among the members of the society. It held:Though every 'retweet' of defamatory imputation would ordinarily amount to 'publication' under Section 499 of IPC, it is ultimately for the person so aggrieved to decide which retweet caused more harm to his reputation, and inter alia lowered his moral or intellectual character or his credibility among the members of society.Additionally, the bench held that in this case, the large social media following of a Chief Minister of a State implies a wider reach and makes any retweet a form of “public endorsement or acknowledgement.”“In this Court's opinion, while all acts of retweeting may amount to publication of defamatory imputation, the extent of harm caused to the reputation of the aggrieved person would depend on the level of influence and the potential reach of the individual who retweets such defamatory imputation, the court said.It added that the original author of the alleged defamatory content will also be liable for any action if a complaint is filed against him. However, it is the choice of the complainant, who may decide whether the person who retweeted such content had caused him more damage or not, since he had more friends or followers, by sharing content.Furthermore, it said that if defamatory content is retweeted by an individual with negligible followers or very limited influence, the impact on the complainant's reputation may be less severe to fall within the ambit of the offence of defamation, due to the limited or negligible reach. The court said that it would be a matter of trial as to whether a person's retweet of defamatory content, with a following of ten persons or zero persons, would be sufficient to attract action for the offence of defamation. “Therefore, the social media reach as well as the social and political standing of the person, retweeting the defamatory imputation, is of great relevance. If a public figure with millions of followers retweets any defamatory content, the impact on the aggrieved person‟ 's reputation and his character will be much greater, since the larger audience and the influence wielded by a public figure would amplify the spread and longevity of the defamatory content,” the court said. It added that such a person's influence may also make his audience believe the defamatory content to be true, thereby lowering the reputation of the aggrieved person.Difficult To Erase Reputational Injury From Public MemoryThe court said it is difficult to erase the reputational injury from public memory, as the tweets may be deleted but perceptions are difficult to delete from the minds of the community.“This Court, thus, for the purpose of adjudicating the present case, holds that retweeting a content, which is allegedly defamatory, on the Twitter account and projecting it to be as if his own views, will prima facie attract the liability under Section 499 of IPC, for the purpose of issuance of summons,” it said.It added that as a leader with political standing and maturity, Kejriwal is presumed to be aware of the potential impact of his actions, including retweets, on the public perception. “When a public figure, particularly one with a political standing, tweets or retweets a defamatory post, the stakes and repercussions escalate given the broader implications on society. The audience, therefore, becomes the citizenry at large, whose opinions and decisions may be influenced by the information they consume, including defamatory statements published on social media,” the court said.Wide Ramifications Of Retweets By Public FiguresIt added that the argument of mere retweeting without harmful intent has to be weighed against a public figure's duty to exercise due diligence and care in disseminating information on social media platforms.Justice Sharma further held that when a public figure tweets a defamatory post, the ramifications extend far beyond a mere whisper in someone's ears and thus, a sense of responsibility has to be attached while...

Retweeting Defamatory Content Is “Publication", Aggrieved Can Decide Which Retweet Caused More Harm To Reputation: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Retweeting Defamatory Content Is “Publication", Aggrieved Can Decide Which Retweet Caused More Harm To Reputation: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers