The Delhi High Court on Monday upheld summons issued to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal as an accused in a criminal defamation case for retweeting an allegedly defamatory video circulated by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in May 2018, saying that reposting alleged libelous content will attract defamation law.
The high court said a sense of responsibility has to be attached while retweeting content about which one does not have knowledge and added that retweeting of defamatory content must invite penal, civil as well as tort action if the person retweeting it does not attach a disclaimer.
“This court is of the view that rigours of Section 499 (defamation) of IPC will be attracted prima facie in case a person retweets/ reposts the alleged defamatory remarks or content, for the purpose of the general public to see, appreciate and believe,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
The high court, while refusing to quash the trial court’s 2019 order summoning Kejriwal, said when a public figure tweets a defamatory post, the ramifications extend far beyond a mere whisper in someone’s ears.
“In social media, where information travels at lightning speed and has the potential to reach a global audience, the act of tweeting transforms the communication into a form of public publication. The audience, in this context, is not restricted to those physically present or within immediate earshot but encompasses the vast and diverse online community.
“In the digital age, the boundaries of ‘publication’ have expanded, and the implications of defamation are heightened due to the potential of widespread dissemination,” it said.
It added that unlike physical injury, which may be localised and limited in scope, virtual injury can have far-reaching and long-lasting effects.
The court said the law with regard to posting of a defamatory content by way of re-tweeting or reposting is still not settled and is evolving.
It said if the act of retweeting or reposting is allowed to be misused as it is still considered to be a vacant grey area of law, it will encourage people with ill intentions to misuse this vacant field of law and conveniently take a plea that they had merely retweeted a content.
“In addressing a democratic community, it is crucial to emphasise that freedom of speech, while a fundamental right, does not grant individuals the licence to inflict harm or tarnish the reputation of others,” it said.
In rendering equal protection, the court said it must balance the right of free speech with the need to prevent unjust harm to reputation and injurious falsehood of a statement will definitely invite defamation and loss of reputation.
At times, it is difficult to erase the reputational injury from public memory, as the tweets may be deleted but perceptions are difficult to be deleted from the minds of the community, it said.
The court said the use of cyberspace has seen rapid development and the users, for the purpose of posting their content even by way of retweeting, should remain conscious of a keen sense of danger in this new technological method of spreading information.