Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ADDICTIVE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY LIMITED & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
ADITYA GARG & ORS. – Respondent
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 Thre
Defamation claims arising from social media interactions require substantial evidence of harm and context consideration; provocative exchanges may negate defamation claims.
Defamation plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: social media posts in casual conversational groups read impressionistically in context; no cause of action absent identifiability, substantial ....
The right to freedom of speech and expression is protected, but it does not entitle anyone to resort to speech that is defamatory. In a defamation suit, the Defendant has the burden of proving the tr....
The twits made by the petitioner did not constitute the offence of defamation under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC.
The judgment established the balance between freedom of speech and expression and the right to reputation, and granted interim relief to protect the reputation of the plaintiffs.
The court clarified that defamatory statements made on social media can significantly harm a person's reputation, warranting damages even if the plaintiff does not prove exact injury amounts.
The court ruled that the right to freedom of speech takes precedence over defamation claims unless a strong prima facie case is established, underscoring the necessity to balance fundamental rights.
The court established that defamatory statements made on social media can lead to liability, regardless of the defendant's belief in their truth, and awarded damages for reputational harm.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
