The Supreme Court dismissed a journalist’s plea challenging a Delhi High Court order directing removal of social media posts accusing a co-passenger of sexual harassment, observing that publicly identifying someone online could harm reputation and amount to defamation, especially when consequences included suspension from employment.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea filed by a journalist challenging a Delhi High Court order directing her to remove social media posts in which she had accused a fellow passenger of sexual harassment during a flight and shared his photograph and workplace details online.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan where they refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s interim order.
The apex court said:
“We are not interfering with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, hence, dismissed.”
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court: Commenting on a Woman’s Hair is Not Sexual Harassment
During the hearing before the apex court, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, appearing for the journalist, argued that his client was a young victim of sexual violence whose right to speak about her experience was being curtailed.
Dehadrai submitted,
“Perpetrators rush to the High Court and manage to get an interim stay restraining her. There is a restraint on me from speaking about the incident. Please see how the High Court deals with it,”
However, the Bench expressed serious concern over the practice of making allegations on social media platforms without awaiting legal adjudication, especially where the accused person’s identity and employment details are publicly disclosed.
ustice Nagarathna observed that such actions could have severe consequences on a person’s life and reputation, noting that the man had allegedly lost his job after the posts went viral online.
The judge remarked,
“You went to social media for this? Don’t go spreading it everywhere. You are trying to say someone is a perpetrator and putting it on social media. You are supposed to be the victim. Somebody sees it, and he is suspended from his job. Look at the consequences. Therefore, he says this is defamatory. You should not go and defame anybody like this. He has filed a suit for defamation. There is a right to reputation,”
At one stage of the proceedings, the Court also made broader observations about the increasing number of such allegations surfacing in public spaces and online platforms.
The Court observed after dictating the order,
“In cinema theatres also, we will now have separate seats for women and men…In marriage halls, all women on one side and all men on another… What is this? If such allegations are to be made, do you want bifurcation? We will order that as a guideline so there are no perpetrators,”
In response, Dehadrai argued that the competing constitutional interest involved the journalist’s right to freedom of speech and expression.
When the journalist’s counsel argued that the case also involved his client’s right to freedom of speech and expression, Justice B V Nagarathna responded that such arguments could be raised before the trial court handling the defamation proceedings.
In that context, the judge remarked, “You get the suit dismissed,” indicating that the appropriate remedy would be to contest the defamation case on merits rather than seek interference with the interim order before the Supreme Court.
Factual Backgrounds:
The controversy arose from an incident that allegedly took place on March 11 during a Delhi–Mumbai flight. The journalist accused a co-passenger of inappropriate conduct during the journey and subsequently posted allegations against him on social media platform X. Along with the allegations, she also shared the man’s photograph and details regarding his workplace.
Following the posts, the man denied the allegations and approached the Delhi High Court by filing a defamation suit. He argued that the public accusations had severely damaged his reputation and professional standing.
The High Court initially passed an interim injunction directing the journalist to take down the social media post. It also restrained her and certain media houses from publishing or circulating similar allegations until further orders.
Subsequently, on April 2, a Division Bench of the High Court upheld the interim relief and continued the direction requiring removal of the posts. Challenging this order, the journalist approached the Supreme Court.
The counsel appearing for the journalist further informed the Court that an FIR had already been registered in relation to the alleged incident on the flight. He argued that the allegations were not fabricated and therefore the interim restraint on the journalist’s social media posts was unjustified.
To support his submissions, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai relied on legal principles evolved in defamation law, particularly the Bonnard principle, which discourages courts from granting prior restraint orders in defamation cases unless the statement is clearly false or malicious.
Through this argument, the counsel attempted to persuade the Bench that courts should ordinarily avoid restraining publication or speech at an interim stage unless there is an obvious case of falsity or malice.
The Bench reiterated its concern about the impact of public allegations made through social media platforms, especially when they directly identify an individual and potentially affect his reputation and employment before any judicial determination of guilt.
ALSO READ: [Women Wrestler’s Sexual Harassment] ‘Evidence of Main Witness Recorded’: Court
Ultimately, the Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s interim order directing removal of the posts and restraining further publication of similar allegations. The special leave petition was therefore dismissed, allowing the High Court’s directions to continue operating pending further proceedings in the defamation suit.
The ruling comes amid continuing debates around the balance between freedom of speech, survivors’ rights to speak about alleged misconduct, and the right to reputation guaranteed under law.
The case has also renewed discussions on the legal implications of naming accused individuals publicly on social media before completion of investigation or trial proceedings.
Case Title: Khansa Juned v. Nidish Gopalkrishnan Nair.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE