The Delhi High Court rejected LawSikho’s defamation case against four individuals over critical tweets, ruling that social media debates are casual and not defamatory. The court also fined LawSikho Rs 1 lakh for not presenting the full conversation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court dismissed a defamation case filed by LawSikho, an online legal education company, against four individuals who criticized the quality of its law courses on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter).
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also ordered LawSikho to pay Rs 1 lakh as a penalty, stating that the company did not approach the Court “with clean hands” since it failed to present the full conversation in the thread.
“The Court notes that a plaintiff alleging defamation on social media platform arising out of a conversation thread must mandatorily disclose the full conversation thread, particularly his own tweets/comments as well and should approach the Court with clean hands. The plaint is thus rejected with costs of Rs 1,00,000 payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks,”
-the judge ruled.
The Court emphasized that in cases of defamation on social media, the alleged defamatory tweets should not be read separately but in the context of the entire conversation.
“The Court notes that utterances in the nature of tweets in a conversational thread on platform X are not to be assessed in isolation for the purposes of determining the defamation claim. The Court has to consider that nature of the medium is casual and fast-paced, conversational in character, and an elaborate analysis of a 140-character tweet (or even more than that) may be disproportional. Importantly, the absorption by the reader and the reaction to the post is impressionistic and fleeting,”
-the judge said.
The Court pointed out that LawSikho’s representative, Ramanuj Mukherjee, had himself initiated the discussion on X with his tweet.
The judge observed that the tweets made by the defendants did not amount to defamation because they were a response to Mukherjee’s “deliberate taunting and provocation.”
The case revolved around a discussion between LawSikho and the defendants regarding the quality of legal education at National Law Universities (NLUs) and the effectiveness of LawSikho’s courses.
The debate started when Mukherjee posted a tweet on X, to which advocates Aditya Garg and Ashish Goel, both NLU alumni, along with others, responded or quoted.
LawSikho had filed the defamation suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages, claiming that the tweets could harm its business and negatively impact its share value on the National Stock Exchange. However, the defendants argued that their comments were fair opinions protected under the law.
The Court ruled that social media comments might be harsh, but they do not necessarily qualify as defamation, as social media is a casual platform that does not significantly influence public opinion.
“The Court has considered that the casual nature of the medium invites anonymous posts which may ex-facie be disparaging but cannot amount to defamation as it may not have a serious effect to form an impression about the character of the plaintiff,”
-the judge stated.
The Court also pointed out that interactions on X are conversational in nature.
“Before alleging defamation on the basis of a tweet, the plaintiff should bear in mind the conversational nature of medium and also bear responsibilities for the content of its own tweets which lead to the impugned Tweets,”
-the Bench said.
The Court stressed that in defamation cases involving social media, the full conversation thread must be disclosed.
Comparing social media posts with traditional media like newspapers, the Court said:
“The newspapers and magazines are read with the intent to collect and retain information and, therefore, it bears effect in forming of opinions. In contrast, the casual medium of a conversational social media platform such as ‘X’ is not perceived by the users of the said platform as a reliable verified source of information,”
-the Court stated.
The Court clarified that a person cannot be punished for expressing an opinion unless it causes actual harm or loss.
It also noted that LawSikho had not first used its legal remedy under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, by reporting the matter to the platform’s Grievance Officer before approaching the Court.
As a result, the Court rejected LawSikho’s complaint, stating that there was no valid reason for a defamation claim.
However, the judge noted that LawSikho still has the option to pursue action under IT Rules.
“However, in the facts of this case, the Impugned Tweet Nos. 1 to 6 do not tantamount to defamation as they are a direct result of deliberate taunting and provocation by the plaintiff no.2,”
-the Court stated.
Additionally, the Court found that the tweets did not actually cause any damage, harm, or loss to LawSikho.
Advocate Raghav Awasthi represented LawSikho in the case, while Advocates Himanshu Bhushan and Shagun Srivastava appeared on behalf of the second defendant.
CASE TITLE:
Addictive Learning Technology Limited & Anr v. Aditya Garg & Ors.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
