Retweeting allegedly defamatory content constitutes 'publication' under Section 499 IPC, attracting liability unless clarified with a disclaimer or within exceptions.

JUDGMENT

INDEX TO THE JUDGMENT

PRELUDE

BACKGROUND FACTS

The Allegations

History of Judicial Proceedings

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2

THE ORDERS IMPUGNED BEFORE THIS COURT

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

I. ARGUMENT THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER

II. THE OFFENCE OF DEFAMATION

Meaning and Definition

Provisions of Law

Essential Ingredients to Constitute Offence of Defamation

Issuance of Process/Summons vis-a-vis Offence of Defamation: Material Considerations

III. BALANCING CRITICAL YET COMPETING INTERESTS: FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION Vs PROTECTING A PERSON FROM REPUTATIONAL INJURY

IV. MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF ADJUDICATING GREY AREA OF LAW NOT YET EFFECTIVELY ADJUDICATED UPON: LAYING FOUNDATION STONE OF JURISPRUDENCE

Pace of Spread of Scandalous Content: From the Echo of Whispers in Pre-Digital Era compared to the Spread at Lightning Speed of Digital Dissemination in Digital Era

V. 'RETWEETING' A DEFAMATORY IMPUTATION WILL AMOUNT TO 'PUBLICATION' FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 499 OF IPC

VI. REACH & INFLUENCE OF THE PERSON RETWEETING DEFAMATORY CONTENT

VII. WILL EVERY 'RETWEET' ATTRACT ACTION UNDER SECTION 499 OF IPC?

VIII. WHETHER PETITIONER IS LIABLE TO BE SUMMONED FOR HIS ACT OF RETWEETING THE ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY CONTENT?

CONCLUSION

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

PRELUDE

1. The sheer magnanimity of reputational injury caused by posting defamatory content against a person who holds his reputation dear to him, which may often be dismissed as a mere tweet or retweet, has been urged to be examined, persuading this Court to adjudicate this critical issue since now the Cyber World turns Whispers into Symphony.

2. In today's digital age, the dynamics of law change, as exemplified by the present case, where this Court has been posed with a situation where reputational harm has been alleged by the complainant by a repost in cyberspace. In this evolving digital age, physical damage to someone's reputation is not the only possibility but it is the cyber world which now has taken over the real world, where if any defamatory statement is made, the effect of reputational harm is amplified. In the realm of defamation, statements made in the physical world may resemble a mere whisper, but when echoed in the cyber domain, the impact magnifies exponentially.

3. The issue before this Court through the present petition is one which requires this Court to lay down certain principles based on jurisprudence of defamation, in the light of the evolution of cyberspace, and its extensive usage as a means to damage the reputation of someone. The Court is posed with a situation where an alleged defamatory content has been posted by an original author, and then the same content has been retweeted/reposted on the popular social media platform 'Twitter' (now 'X') by the present petitioner.

4. While the Courts may still struggle, faced with issue as to what will amount to publishing' and whether 're-tweeting' of a defamatory content also amounts to publishing so as to be covered under the definition of Section 499 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ('IPC'), the concerns arising out of such vast reach of defamatory content and corresponding reputational injury to a person has given rise to the following important question of law:

Whether 'Retweeting' any defamatory content will be covered in the meaning of 'public