1. Suit for defamation and damages arising from a tweet alleging police brutality against farmers. (Para 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J
Ajay Pal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Udaiveer Singh – Respondent
CS(OS) 139/2020 | I.A. 4364/2020 | I.A. 6102/2020 | I.A. 6103/2020
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sameer Kumar, Aditya Shankar
For the Respondents: Saurabh Kirpal, Anuroop Chakravarti
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sameer Kumar, Aditya Shankar
For the Respondents: Saurabh Kirpal, Anuroop Chakravarti
In internet defamation cases, territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 CPC is not global. Plaintiffs must specifically plead the actual harm occurred within the court's jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises where the defendant resides, the suit must be instituted there to avoid 'libel tourism'.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 19 - Defamation via social media - Territorial jurisdiction - The mere fact that a defamatory tweet is accessible across the globe does not confer jurisdiction on every court - A plaintiff seeking to invoke jurisdiction where neither party resides must specifically plead the wrong done within that jurisdiction by providing particulars of the persons in that jurisdiction whose esteem of the plaintiff fell. (Paras 9 and 10)
(B) Section 19 CPC - Scope - The option for a plaintiff to sue either where the wrong was done or where the defendant resides/carries on business is only applicable if the two are different - If the wrong was done within the jurisdiction where the defendant resides, the suit must necessarily be instituted in that Court to prevent "libel tourism". (Paras 10 and 13)
Facts of the case:
An action for damages and injunction was initiated by the plaintiff against a tweet uploaded by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that a photograph in the tweet resembled him and, combined with the context of high-ranking police officers, resulted in his defamation. The defendant, who resides and works for gain in Uttar Pradesh, challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi court, as the tweet was merely accessible in Delhi but no specific harm within that jurisdiction was pleaded.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff did not provide particulars of any person in Delhi who accessed the tweet and in whose esteem the plaintiff fell. Since the defendant resides in Uttar Pradesh and the cause of action also arose there, the court held it was prima facie without jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Issues: Whether a court has territorial jurisdiction in a defamation suit based on social media posts simply because the content is accessible within its limits, or if specific particulars of the wrong done within that jurisdiction must be pleaded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that wrong in defamation on social media is not the act of uploading, but the communication of the content to a third party who knows the plaintiff. Under Section 19 of the CPC, if the wrong and the defendant's residence are within the same jurisdiction, the plaintiff cannot choose another court to avoid harassment to the defendant.
Result: Application is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Defendant argued tweet was not defamatory and that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 CPC. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Court held that for internet defamation, jurisdiction requires specific pleas of wrong done within the court's territory. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Under Section 19 CPC, a suit for internet defamation must be filed where the wrong was done or the defendant resides. (Para 10 , 13 )
5. Application for interim injunction dismissed as court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. What is the test for territorial jurisdiction in a suit for internet defamation under Section 19 CPC?
The plaint must contain specific pleas of wrong done within the court's jurisdiction, including particulars of persons in whose esteem the plaintiff fell. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. Can a plaintiff choose any court where defamatory internet content is accessible?
No. The wrong of defamation on social media cannot be said to have been done everywhere the content is accessible; specific publication to a third party is required. (Para 10 )
8. Where must a plaintiff sue if the wrong and defendant's residence are within the same court's jurisdiction?
Under Section 19 CPC, the plaintiff must sue in that court and cannot choose an alternative jurisdiction where the wrong was also done. (Para 10 , 13 )
%
JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
(video conferencing)
I.A. 6102/2020 (for condonation of delay)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of two days, in filing the rejoinder, is condoned. Rejoinder is taken on record.
2. The application is disposed of.
I.A. 6103/2020
1. Subject to the attested affidavit being filed within 72 hours of resumption of normal court work, exemption, as sought, is granted for the present.
2. The application is disposed of.
IA 4364/2020 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) in CS(OS) 139/2020
1. Detailed arguments were heard, on this IA, as advanced by Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned counsel for the defendant and Mr. Sameer Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff.
2. Consequent thereupon, it transpires that the present IA may be disposed of, without entering into the merits of the controversy.
3. For the sake of record, however, a brief allusion to the facts would be apposite.
4. The suit, as filed by the plaintiff, claims damages, is directed against a tweet, uploaded by the defendant on his Twitter handle. A snapshot of the tweet, which reveals itself, may be reproduced thus:-
Udaiveersingh @UdaiveerSingh
Follow
0:00 / 0:26
11.3K views
Udaiveersingh @UdaiveerSingh · 9/11/2019
ये है उत्तर प्रदेश पुलिस की हालत, किसानों को लाठी से पीटा जा रहा है। अगर ये माननीय मुख्यमंत्री जी के संज्ञान में होता तो क्या ऐसा होता? @myogiadityanath @UPPolice @CMOfficeUP
9:08 / 20.8K views
103 767 2K
5. Though, the aforesaid tweet does not name the plaintiff, the plaintiff avers that the man, shown standing in the photograph accompanying the tweet, resembles the plaintiff, though it is also asserted that he is not, in fact, the plaintiff. This fact, coupled with the reference, in the tweet, to an “Uchh Police Adhikari” (a high ranking police officer) and the comments, which the tweet has invited, which specifically name the plaintiff, the plaintiff would seek to allege, have resulted in his defamation at the hands of the defendant, entitling him to injunction and damages.
6. The defendant has, consequent to issuance of the summons, entered appearance and filed a written statement, in response to the plaint as well as a reply in response to the present IA. Rejoinder, thereto, has also been filed by the plaintiff.
7. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned counsel for the defendant, advanced detailed submissions, to contend that the aforesaid tweet was not defamatory.
8. Additionally, Mr. Kirpal has sought to point out that the suit was bad for want of territorial jurisdiction, for which purpose, he has placed reliance on the recent judgment by a Single Judge of this Court, in Escorts Limited v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia , (2019 SCC OnLine (Del) 7607). He has drawn especial attention of this Court to paras 33, 34 and 37 to 46 of the said judgment, which may be reproduced thus:
“33. I have wondered, that if such is the plea, whether a plaintiff in a suit for compensation for defamation by publication on internet, has an option under Section 19 of the CPC to sue the defendant anywhere in India.
34. In my opinion, no. Section 19, while vesting an option in plaintiff, only envisages, wrong done in jurisdiction of one Court and defendant residing in jurisdiction of another Court. Merely because, with the advent of trade and commerce, wrong done to the plaintiff can be across the country, cannot expand/widen the option vested under Section 19 in the plaintiff. Reading Section 19 so, would render it arbitrary, vesting an unguided option, capable of misuse in one of the parties to the lis i.e. the plaintiff and lead to “court shopping” and “libel tourism”. There is thus a need to construe/apply Section 19, in such situations, reasonably, so as not to put a plaintiff in such a suit, in a position disadvantageous to the defendant.
*****
37. According to paragraph 37 of the plaint itself, the defamatory tweets can be accessed, not only at New Delhi but “across the globe”. The question which arises is, whether in case of defamation alleged on such social media pl
