IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance access to open information with safeguarding privacy, applying the law of torts and privacy laws to provide relief to the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Plaintiff, in the present suit, posted a tweet on her social media handle `X' (formerly known as Twitter) which was a comment about an interview of a public political figure. It is the case of the Plaintiff that she had tweeted anonymously from her `X' handle. However, considering the political figure involved in her tweet, various posts and tweets appeared on multiple Twitter handles, the identities of whom is not available at this point, wherein comments were made against the Plaintiff. In some of the said tweets her entire professional identity, photographs, image was also disclosed and an email was written to her employer.

3. It is averred by the Plaintiff that the present case is the one of `Doxing', wherein the various Defendants have searched for and published private information about the Plaintiff on the internet with malicious intent.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff by Mr. Awasthi, ld. Counsel, that the Petitioner had not tweeted against the public political figure but against the person who had written a tweet i.e., Squint Neon-Defendant No.1. Further, ld. Counsel also relies on the judgement of Swami Ramdev v. Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., (MANU/DE/3565/2018) and Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (MANU/SC/1044/2017) to highlight the issue in the present case and to state that every individual should have a right to be able to exercise control over his/her own life and image as portrayed to the world and to control commercial use of his/her identity. This also means that an individual may be permitted to prevent others from using her image, name and other aspects of her personal life and identity for commercial purposes without consent.

5. The said tweet was posted on 17th January, 2024 and the subsequent objectionable tweets were posted immediately thereafter i.e., on 18th January, 2024, 19th January, 2024, etc. It is submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that she is a professional person working abroad and she does not wish to be trolled and the manner in which a malicious campaign has been launched against her on online platforms is leading to enormous harassment and embarrassment in her professional and personal life.

6. On the last date, i.e., 20th February, 2024, notice was issued to Platform `X' (formerly known as Twitter). Mr. Deepak Gogia, ld. Counsel appears and submits that there are six objectionable tweets as per the Plaintiff out of which five could be removed and the Basic Subscriber Information (hereinafter, `BSI') details could be disclosed. However, one of the tweet at page 6 cannot be held to be objectionable and, thus, no order deserves to be passed.

7. Insofar as e-mail dated 19th January, 2024 is concerned, the same is a Gmail address and the Plaintiff seeks banning of the Gmail address itself.

8. Having seen the record, it emanates that the first tweet by the Plaintiff is, in fact, not an anonymous tweet. It bears the same initials as her name and her photograph has also been posted as the display picture of her Twitter handle as confirmed by the counsel. Thus, the Plaintiff's presumption this was an anonymous tweet would be incorrect.

9. The Plaintiff's Counsel submits that the Plaintiff does not wish to post any such tweets and she has already taken down the original tweet which led to these turn of events. It is submitted on Plaintiff's behalf that the said tweet was merely an attempt against Defendant No.1, though, the language seems to suggest otherwise. On her behalf it is submitted that she expresses regret for the said initial tweet.

10. The Plaintiff is clearly a professional person against whom various comments are being made on the internet which are offensive, defamatory and derogatory. Though the initial tweet of the Plaintiff may have been the cause, considering her professional and personal standing, this Court is of the opinion that the offending tweets, at t