LI Network
Published on: February 6, 2024 at 10:20 IST
The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has declared that each retweet of defamatory content on social media constitutes “publication” and falls under the purview of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, dealing with defamation.
The judgment was delivered in response to a plea seeking to quash summons issued to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for allegedly defaming Vikas Sanskrityayan, the founder of the social media page “I support Narendra Modi.”
The Court, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, dismissed the plea and emphasized that while every retweet of defamatory imputation is considered “publication” under Section 499, it is ultimately the prerogative of the aggrieved person to decide which retweet caused more harm to their reputation.
The ruling specified that the impact on reputation depends on the level of influence and potential reach of the individual who retweets the content.
The case involved Kejriwal’s retweet of a publication on Twitter by Youtuber Dhruv Rathee, accusing members of the BJP IT Cell of paying money to defame him.
The Court highlighted that a public figure’s retweet, especially one with significant social and political standing like a Chief Minister, amounts to a “public endorsement or acknowledgment.”
The judgment underlines that the original author of defamatory content remains liable, but the complainant has the right to decide whether the retweeter caused more damage based on their influence and followers.
The Court also introduced the notion that the impact of defamatory content may be less severe if retweeted by an individual with negligible followers or limited influence. It emphasized that social media reach and the standing of the person retweeting are crucial factors, especially when public figures with millions of followers are involved.
The ruling acknowledged the difficulty of erasing reputational injury from public memory, emphasizing that even deleted tweets may leave lasting impressions. It held that retweeting allegedly defamatory content on Twitter, projecting it as one’s own views, could prima facie attract liability under Section 499, necessitating the issuance of summons.
Justice Sharma concluded that the act of retweeting, especially by public figures, requires a sense of responsibility, and a duty to exercise due diligence and care in disseminating information on social media platforms.
The judgment serves as a significant guideline on the legal implications of retweeting defamatory content, ensuring accountability and discouraging misuse of this aspect of the law.
The Court highlighted the need for penal, civil, or tort action against individuals causing reputational injury through retweeting in the absence of any disclaimer.
Case Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. STATE & ANR