The Delhi High Court Today (05 Feb 2024) stated that retweeting defamatory content constitutes an act of defamation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has made a pivotal decision regarding the defamation case involving Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, and Dhruv Rathee, a well-known YouTuber, against allegations made by the BJP IT cell. The court’s refusal to quash the defamation case underscores the intricate relationship between social media conduct and legal accountability, especially for public figures.
The heart of the matter lies in a video posted by Dhruv Rathee, which was subsequently retweeted by Arvind Kejriwal. The BJP IT cell claims that the content of the video was defamatory, leading to the legal battle that has now reached the Delhi High Court. The court’s judgment sheds light on the responsibilities that come with the wide reach of individuals holding public office, like Kejriwal.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld a trial court order summoning Arvind Kejriwal in the case.
The single-judge said that Kejriwal has a significant following on X (formerly Twitter) and he did understand the repercussions of retweeting the video.
The Bench, in its detailed judgment, emphasized the significant influence that Kejriwal holds as the Chief Minister. It noted,
“Kejriwal is the Chief Minister of the State which implies that he has a wider reach which makes any retweet by him, a form of public endorsement or acknowledgment.”
This statement highlights the weight of social media interactions carried out by individuals in positions of power and their potential implications.
The Court further elaborated on the consequences of such social media activities, stating,
“when a political person of such standing posts some content on his social media account, it can be reasonably believed that he did understand the repercussions and implications of posting such content and the harm it can cause to the person aggrieved.”
This underscores the expectation of awareness and responsibility from public figures regarding their online behavior.
One of the key quotes from the judgment addresses the liability associated with online defamation through platforms like Twitter. The Court declared,
“In this Court’s opinion, the online interactions and engagement on Twitter, which involves publication of defamatory statements and content, and sharing such content with others by retweeting will surely attract liability since it would amount to posting defamatory content as one’s own by believing it to be true and thus, sharing it with the public at large.”
Justice Sharma, contributing to the judgment, pointed out the necessity to determine Kejriwal’s awareness of the content he retweeted and his intent regarding the defamation of the complainant. These aspects are crucial for the trial, as Justice Sharma noted-
“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. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Sessions Court.”
This case highlights the evolving legal landscape regarding social media use and its implications for defamation law, especially for public figures. The Delhi High Court’s decision not only reaffirms the accountability of individuals in power for their online actions but also sets a precedent for how such cases might be viewed in the future.
As social media continues to play a pivotal role in public discourse, the legal principles outlined in this judgment are likely to influence future defamation suits, emphasizing the need for caution and responsibility in online communications.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
