'Prima Facie Defamatory' : Delhi High Court Asks Saket Gokhale To Take Down Tweets Against Lakshmi Puri

"With Social Media, Desecration Of Reputation Of Public Figure Is Child's Play Now"

 "Reputations, nourished and nurtured over years of selfless service and toil, may crumble in an instant; one thoughtless barb is sufficient", the Court observed in the interim order.

While deciding on the plea, the court took highlighted that public figures stand to suffer more in terms of loss of reputation than one who is away from public gaze, while noting that Puri is a former diplomat and her husband is a serving Union Minister.

The court said that it is pertinent that atleast a "preliminary enquiry" of facts must be conducted before posting material against a person on social media. Rejecting Gokhale's submission that no such due diligence is necessary, the court said, "Such a submission, if accepted, would place the reputation of every citizen in the country in serious jeopardy, and open to ransom at the hands of every social media vigilante, some of whose intentions may be less than honorable."

While holding thus, the court further observed, "This is all the more so in the case of public figures, whose actions are, as a matter of course, subjected to intensive and invasive dissection by all members of the public."

The court was ruling on a civil suit filed by the former diplomat seeking interim remedies against Gokhale. The suit argued that Gokhale's tweets alleging disproportionate assets with respect to the purchase of a Swiss property, and the non-disclosure of income, were false and defamatory. The allegations were posted by Gokhale on the social media platform Twitter over a period of time - while some of the tweets referred to Lakshmi Puri by name, some of them didn't. However, the court after examining the facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that there was "no dispute on this score."

The court noted that in the said tweets, Gokhale had not only made some allegations but also stated that, "he was in possession of 'all papers/documents' relating to the transaction", thereby conveying the "prima facie impression that the misstatement was deliberate."

Thereafter, referring to the widespread use of social media in present days to fling criticism, founded or unfounded, on parties, the court said, "In the age of social media, desecration of the reputation of a public figure has become child's play. All that is needed is the opening of a social media account and, thereafter, the posting of messages on the account. Thousands of responses are received and, in the process, the reputation of the man, who is targeted, becomes mud."

The court took note that in the present case too, till the date of filing of the suit, the tweets posted by the defendant had been "liked" by more than 26,270 users and "re-tweeted" by more than 8,280 users.

The court referred to 40 pages of responding tweets, by members Gokhale's target audience, which were also been placed on record and said that "several of the tweets (were)... to say the least, in very poor taste, containing abuses, allegations and opprobrious epithets against Puri and her husband."

The Swiss Property

With respect to the alleged non-disclosure of assets and income behind the purchase of the Swiss property, on which Gokhale's tweets were based, the court relied on two affidavits placed on record with respect to full disclosure by Puri and her husband.

During her tenure with the UNCTAD in Geneva, Puri had decided to purchase Apartment No. 4A, Residence Prevert, Chemin des Couleuvres, 1295, Tannay, Switzerland priced at Swiss Francs (CHF) 1.6 million.

The court after going through the disclosure documents, said, Puri had borrowed CHF 1 million from the UBS Bank, Geneva against mortgage of the property, which was still being serviced.

Documents, evidencing financing, by the UBS Bank, of CHF 1 million, in two tranches of CHF 500,000 each, had been placed on record, in this regard.

The remaining consideration, for purchase of the Apartment, of CHF
600,000 was lent, to Puri, by her daughter (a Senior Executive in a Bank in New York) in two tranches.

Documents, relating to Credit Advices issued by Puri's bank, evidencing receipt of money on 9th December, 2004 of CHF 199,334 and on 11th March, 2005 of CHF 506,000, from her daughter were also placed on record.

Hardeep S Puri, her husband, was, at the time, posted at Geneva (since 2002) as the Ambassador, Permanent Mission of India and, between them, the Puris were earning approximately US $290,000 per annum.

After going through the records, the court was satisfied and said that prima facie, "the transactions appear to be perfectly legitimate."