The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court has brought to the forefront the complex legal issues surrounding the dissemination of defamatory content on social media platforms, particularly in the context of retweeting. This article aims to provide a detailed analytical examination of the implications of the Court's decision in the case of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's appeal against defamation charges arising from his retweet of allegedly defamatory content.

Background:
In the case before the Delhi High Court, Vikas Sankritayan, the operator of the social media post 'I Support Narendra Modi', filed a defamation complaint against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for retweeting a comment made by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in 2018. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding as a single bench, examined Kejriwal's appeal against the summons issued in response to Sankritayan's complaint.

The Ruling:
The Delhi High Court ruled that each retweet of defamatory content on social media constitutes "publication" and falls within the purview of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with defamation. The Court upheld the summon orders and rejected Kejriwal's plea to dismiss the defamation case. It emphasized that when an individual retweets defamatory content on their Twitter account, it presents such content as their own views, thereby triggering liability under Section 499 of the IPC.

Analysis:
The Court's ruling raises several important legal and societal considerations. Firstly, it underscores the evolving nature of defamation law in the digital age, particularly in relation to social media platforms. The decision to classify retweeting as "publication" expands the scope of liability for defamation, holding individuals accountable for the dissemination of defamatory content even if they did not create it themselves.

Furthermore, the Court's emphasis on the potential impact of defamatory content when shared by public figures highlights the need for heightened scrutiny of their online conduct. Public figures, especially those with political influence, wield significant power to shape public opinion, making their actions on social media platforms particularly influential. Therefore, the Court's ruling serves as a reminder of the ethical and legal responsibilities that accompany their online presence.

Moreover, the decision raises questions about the balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation in the digital sphere. While individuals have the right to express themselves freely on social media, the dissemination of false and harmful information can have serious consequences for the reputation and well-being of others. The Court's ruling seeks to strike a balance between these competing interests by holding individuals accountable for the content they choose to share online.

Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court's ruling on the classification of retweeting as "publication" of defamatory content on social media represents a significant development in defamation law in India. By expanding the scope of liability for defamation, the Court's decision reflects the growing recognition of the impact of online communication on individuals' reputations and society at large.

Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal Vs State and another
Order Date: 05.02.2024
Case No. CRL.M.C. 6347 of 2019
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:820
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Suwarna Kanta Sharma H.J.

Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539