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 reputational injury, with statutory remedies available and delay evident.

JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.

OMP No.102 of 2025

The present application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE seeking rejection of the plaint. The principal objection being that the plaint does not disclose any enforceable cause of action. It is contended that the alleged imputation in the plaint does not pertain to the plaintiffs. It is further contended that in the plaint an illusion of a cause of action by clever drafting has been tried to be created, hence, the same needs to be nipped in the bud. Besides, it is contended that two important considerations cannot be lost sight of: (a) the nature of the social media platform where the alleged imputation has been made which as compared to a newspaper has far less seriousness attached and (b) the fact that a post made on a social media platform cannot be read in an isolation. Other than the aforesaid, it is contended that: (a) not availing of a statutory remedy under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 by the non-applicants/plaintiffs an aggrieved Social Media user against posts perceived to be defamatory; (b) delay on the part of the plaintiffs in approaching this Court after more than two months of posting of the alleged defamatory post and; (c) not seeking an injunction for an immediate take-down of the alleged defamatory post nor seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction in the prayer clause of the plaint collectively show that the plaintiffs did not perceive the impugned post at the contemporary time to have caused any legal injury to them or to their reputation.

2. Per contra, in the reply filed to the application, it is contended that the plaint and the documents placed on record along-with the same do disclose a cause of action for filing the suit, i.e., false imputation, publication thereof and substantial legal injury viewed in the context of the well set legal parameters with respect to defamation and, hence, the application deserves to be dismissed.

3. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to mention that the expression “cause of action” means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiffs to prove, if traversed in order to entitle them to relief claimed in the suit. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact.

4. Other than the aforesaid, while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , only the averments made in the plaint, in their entirety in conjunction with the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs at the time of filing of the plaint are required to be looked at. The averments made in the plaint in their entirety are taken to be correct at the stage of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE .

5. Civil defamation, though un-codified, in the Indian context is governed by common law principles derived from the English jurisprudence. It refers to a tortious wrong whereby a person makes a false imputation having the tendency to diminish another’s reputation in the estimation of right-minded members of society. The essential constituents of civil defamation may be summarized as follows:

“(i) a false statement, whether written (libel) or spoken (slander); and defamatory in nature i.e., it must ha