Defamation claims arising from social media interactions require substantial evidence of harm and context consideration; provocative exchanges may negate defamation claims.

Headnote:(A) Defamation - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 499 - Digital communication - Plaintiffs claimed damages from defendants for tweets perceived as defamatory. Court found no cause of action, emphasizing that tweets were part of a conversational dynamic on a social media platform and did not meet thresholds for defamation. Court held that criticism towards plaintiffs was provoked by plaintiffs themselves and such exchanges reflect a context less serious than traditional media. No substantive evidence of injury to reputation was established. (Paras 1, 8, 24, 28)

(B) Online Trolling - Court acknowledged that reactionary tweets in the context of trolling should not be considered defamatory given the nature of the digital platform, in line with contemporary jurisprudence. (Paras 10.1, 15)

(C) Statutory Remedy - Reinforced the role of statutory grievance mechanisms under IT Rules 2021 for disputing online defamation claims prior to litigation - Plaintiffs did not utilize this avenue before resorting to court. (Paras 14, 26)

JUDGMENT :

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. The captioned suit has been filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction along with damages. The subject matter of the suit are the tweets published by defendant nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 on the social media platform known as ‘X’ (formerly ‘Twitter’), which has been impleaded as defendant no. 3 in the present suit. It is the case of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 that the impugned tweets are harmful and derogatory to the said plaintiffs and has defamed plaintiffs in Cyber Space.

2. This Court considered it fit to examine the plaint and the documents on the basis of a demurer and assess the contentions therein, particularly since it was prima facie apparent to this Court that there was no cause of action for defamation on the basis of which the suit was filed. Post the detailed assessment of the case at hand given below, this Court indeed concluded that plaint fails to disclose cause of action and, therefore, the present plaint ought to be rejected.

Case setup by the Plaintiffs

3. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have challenged two (2) tweets published by defendant no. 1 and one (1) tweet published by defendant no. 4, which forms part of a ‘Conversation Thread No.1’ initiated by defendant no. 1 on his personal X handle. Similarly, the plaintiffs have challenged two (2) tweets published by defendant no. 2 and one (1) tweet published by defendant no. 5, which forms part of a ‘Conversation Thread No.2’ initiated by defendant no. 2 on his personal X handle.

3.1 It is stated in the plaint that the conversation threads initiated by defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 are reactionary and finds its genesis in a tweet which was first published by plaintiff no. 2 on his personal X handle at 11:20 a.m. on 22.06.2024 (‘Lead Tweet’). It is stated in the plaint [Paragraph ‘13’ to the plaint] that the plaintiff no. 2 posted the said Lead Tweet in good faith, with the intention of shedding light on a significant trend in the legal industry that impacts law students, law firms and educational institutions. It is stated that the said Lead Tweet was intended to motivate law students, who may not have the financial means to attend top National Law Universities (‘NLUs’).

Conversation Thread No.1 (Inter-se between Defendant no.1 and 4)

4. It is stated that defendant no. 1 as a response to the aforesaid Lead Tweet, quote tweeted [A re-tweet with comment. In other words, when a user reposts, another user tweet and adds their own comment or thoughts to it. This feature allows user to share someone else’s tweet and add their own context and perspective to it] the said Lead Tweet on his personal X handle on 22.06.2024 at 01:41 p.m. with his reactionary comment, which started a conversation thread between defendant no. 1 and other users of the X platform. During the course of this conversation thread, defendant no. 1 while responding to another ‘X’ user posted a reply tweet [Document no. 8 to the plaint] at 06:32 p.m. on 22.06.2024, which according to the plaintiffs herein contained defamatory elements (‘Impugned Tweet No. 1’)

4.1 Plaintiff no. 2 has stated that the quote tweeted his response to defendant no. 1’s aforesaid reply tweet from his personal X handle at 06:43 p.m. on 22.06.2024. Plaintiff no. 2 has placed on record [Document no. 9 to the plaint] his response tweet (Plaintiff no.2’s response tweet).

4.2 It is stated that defendant no. 1 once again in reply to aforementioned Plaintiff no. 2’s response tweet (quote tweet) published his response on his personal X handle at 06:51 p.m. [Document no. 10 to the plaint] on 22.06.2024 (‘Impugned Tweet No. 2’) and as per the plaintiffs this reply tweet of defendant no. 1 is defamatory in nature.

4.3 It is stated that defendant no. 4, who is anonymous to the plaintiffs published a reply tweet at 12:37 a.m. [Document no. 11 to the plaint] on 23.06.2024 in this conversation thread, which contained the alleged unwarranted and malicious attack on plaintiff no. 2’s character, causing damage t