Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal challenges defamation case in Supreme Court over a controversial video retweet. The legal dispute, triggered by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee’s content, underscores the complexities of social media and political endorsements. The case prompts a crucial examination of legal boundaries in the digital age.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On 22nd February, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has taken a decisive step by moving the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi High Court’s recent refusal to quash summons issued to him in a criminal defamation case. This case revolves around a retweet by Kejriwal of an allegedly defamatory video posted by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in May 2018.
The upcoming hearing, scheduled for February 23 and led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, is poised to delve into the intricacies of social media, political figures’ online conduct, and the evolving legal landscape surrounding defamation.
ALSO READ: Arvind Kejriwal Questions ED Summons’ Intent Amid Election Campaign
This matter lies in a 2018 tweet by Rathee, accusing the founder and operator of the ‘I Support Narendra Modi’ Twitter page of behaving like ‘BJP IT CELL Part-2.’ Kejriwal’s retweet of this post prompted the page’s founder to file a defamation plea against the Chief Minister. The complainant argued that Kejriwal retweeted without verifying the video’s authenticity.
The trial court, recognizing the merits of the complaint, issued summons to Kejriwal. However, the Chief Minister contested this move in the Delhi High Court, asserting that the trial court overlooked the fact that his retweet was neither intended nor likely to harm the complainant’s reputation.
The Delhi High Court, nonetheless, refused to quash the summons, emphasizing that a chief minister’s significant social media following turns any retweet into a form of public endorsement or acknowledgment.
ALSO READ: Delhi Excise Policy Case :Why Is Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal Refusing ED Summons?
The High Court, in its ruling on February 5, underscored the significance of retweeting, stating that it should attract penal, civil, and tort actions. Particularly, when political figures like the chief minister engage in retweeting with a substantial social media presence, the act transforms into a public endorsement, carrying weight with the public.
The legal foundation of the case rests on the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which defines defamation under Section 499. According to this section, any act or publication intending to harm the reputation of another person constitutes defamation. The court emphasized the necessity to interpret the concept of publication in the context of virtual platforms, indicating that the legal system should evolve alongside the dynamics of social media.
Section 499 of IPC –
Any individual who, through spoken or written words, signs, or visible representations, disseminates an imputation concerning another person with the intent to cause harm, or with knowledge or a reasonable belief that such imputation will be detrimental to the individual’s reputation, is deemed to have committed defamation. Exceptions to this rule may apply as delineated in specific provisions.
In aligning with contemporary communication channels, the High Court highlighted that online interactions on social media, including the act of retweeting, can incur liability for defamation. It stressed that if Arvind Kejriwal wishes to justify his retweeting of the video, the opportunity to do so lies within the trial proceedings.
ALSO READ: Arvind Kejriwal Opts Out of ED Summons, Claims Political Witch-hunt
The case of Arvind Kejriwal challenging defamation summons brings to the forefront the delicate balance between freedom of expression on social media and the legal ramifications that accompany it.