amplifying and re-posting defamatory content, it undermines the very purpose of defamation laws that is to protect individuals from false and damaging statements. 67. Therefore, this Court is of the view that rigours of Section 499 of IPC will be attracted prima facie in case a person will retweet/repost the alleged defamatory remarks or content, for the purpose of the general public to see, appreciate and believe. 68. This can also be explained by way of following illustrations, which weigh in the mind of this Court and have been purely created by this Court for the purpose of explanation, which are not exhaustive but suggestive in nature: Illustrations By This Court (a) B posts defamatory content about Z on his social media account. A, reposts the defamatory content, disseminating it to a larger audience. The act of both A and B is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions or A posts a disclaimer in the repost that the content has not been verified regarding its correctness/ genuineness. (b) B, a well-known influencer, shares a false accusation against Z on her blog. A, a follower, reblogs the content, amplifying its reach. A’s and B’s act constitutes defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions, or A posts a disclaimer in the retweet that the content has not been verified regarding its correctness/ genuineness. (c) B tweets derogatory statements about Z, a public figure. A, another user, retweets B's content, making it visible to a broader audience. A's and B’s action is defamation, unless Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 40 of 50