'Digital Vigilantism': Delhi High Court Pulls Up Media, Actress Richa Chadha For Defamatory Posts Against Man Over Indigo Flight Incident

The Delhi High Court recently pulled up various media platforms including a journalist and actress Richa Chadha for their social media posts labelling a man a “molester” over allegations of sexual harassment arising out of an in-flight incident.

Justice Vikas Mahajan said that the narratives set by the media houses and digital platforms clearly breached the contours of the FIR, and that the publications did not merely report the allegations in the FIR but they prematurely adjudicate the matter.

The Court took exception to the post published on the platform of “Pardafaash Media”, calling it the “most outrageous and unwarranted usage of social media” to sensationalize an issue without verifying the facts of the case.

“The post in question labels the plaintiff as a 'molester' prominently using that expression right above his photograph which also includes his and his employer's name, prima facie, constituting online defamation that could cause public ridicule and loss of reputation to the plaintiff,” the Court said.

The judge was dealing with a defamation suit filed the man against an independent journalist, X Corp, OBNews, Google LLC, Meta Platforms, NDTV Hindi, ABP Live, Richa Chadha and Indigo Airlines.

The dispute stems from an incident on March 11, during a Delhi–Mumbai Indigo flight where a female independent journalist (first defendant) accused the plaintiff of inappropriate conduct mid-flight.

According to the plaint, the plaintiff denied all allegations, claiming he remained seated throughout and was asleep prior to landing.

The controversy escalated after the journalist posted allegations on X, disclosing the plaintiff's identity, photograph, and professional details before any FIR was registered.

The post was subsequently amplified by various media platforms and public figures, including actor Richa Chadha, who reposted the content with the remark “Make him famous.”

The Court passed the interim order in favour of the plaintiff, observing that the social media posts and news reports had “prematurely labelled” the plaintiff as guilty, thereby infringing his right to reputation and fair trial.

“In the context of the present case, when the FIR already stands registered against the plaintiff and the investigation is underway, the defendants may be within their right to share or disseminate the contents of FIR or material which is informative but in public interest, but at the same time the defendants have to exercise restraint and refrain from publishing and circulating any material referring to the character of the plaintiff which creates an atmosphere of prejudice for him or mar his reputation and thereby causes prejudice to an ongoing investigation,” the Court said.

It noted that the woman journalist resorted to broadcasting the allegations on a public social media platform prior to setting the criminal law in motion, as she had posted the incident on social media at about 09:39 A.M. whereas the FIR came to be registered at 12:27 P.M.

“The overhasty public disclosure, prima facie, suggests an attempt to sensationalize the issue and subject the plaintiff to a trial by public opinion, rather than a bona fide pursuit of legal redress. While defendant no. 1 has an unhindered right to report a grievance, but using social media to circulate allegations of inappropriate touching and revealing the identity of the plaintiff along with his photograph before a formal investigation even commences, in a prima facie view of this Court, is a severe transgression of the plaintiff's fundamental right to live with dignity and have fair trial,” the Court said.

Regarding Chadha's role, the Court emphasized the heightened duty of care that accompanies significant public influence. It said that Chadha is undeniably a public figure having a massive active digital footprint.

“The endorsement and amplification of an unverified allegation, accompanied by the instigatory text „Make him famous‟, transcends mere free expression and acts as a catalyst for public shaming and digital vigilantism. A public figure, such as defendant no. 7, bears a legal and moral responsibility to verify the veracity of facts before leveraging her platform to amplify grave accusations. The Court is prima facie of the view that endorsement of unverified allegations has inflicted immediate, exponential, and incalculable harm on the plaintiff's reputation. However, this Court is cognizant of the submission made by Mr. Khuranna with regard to the taking down of the tweet posted by defendant no. 7 and expects defendant no. 7 not to precipitate the issue in future,” the Court said.

It thus directed the independent journalist, OBNews and Pardafaash Media not to publish any post making identical or similar defamatory allegations against the plaintiff, till the next date of hearing.

It also directed social media platforms to take down the defamatory posts published by the defendants, including the repost of Chadha if not already taken down.

Counsel for Plaintiff: Ms. Shyel Trehan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Priyadarshini Dewan, Mr. Shankari Mishra, Ms. Niti Khanna, Ms. Vidhi Jain and Mr. Rohan Poddar, Advs

Counsel for Defendants: Ms. Vanya Chhabra, Adv. for D-1; Mr. Madhav Khuranna, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, Ms. Saloni Kumar, Mr. Chattanya Sharma, Mr. Amit Badesra and Mr. Lakshay Shehrawat, Advs. for D-7

Title: MR. NIDISH GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR v. X & ORS