Previous 41 / 50 Next

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. (d) B publishes a misleading article about Z on an online forum. A, a forum member, reposts the article, contributing to its wider circulation. A's and B’s action 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. (e) B uploads an edited video falsely portraying Z engaging in inappropriate behavior. A, a subscriber, shares the same video on a video-sharing platform, expanding its viewership. A's and B’s action is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions or A posts a disclaimer while sharing the video that the content has not been verified regarding its correctness/ genuineness. VI. REACH & INFLUENCE OF THE PERSON RETWEETING DEFAMATORY CONTENT 69. The assertion that the petitioner simply retweeted defamatory content without any intention to harm the reputation of the respondent no. 2 raises a complex legal issue, especially considering the political standing and maturity of the petitioner, who also holds the position of Chief Minister of the State of Delhi. 70. The background of the petitioner, being a Chief Minister, necessitates an acknowledgment of the inherent sense of responsibility that comes with such a significant political role. As Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 41 of 50

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Kejriwal v. State of India

Case Law

Country

India

Country Location

Latitude: 23.078537445745496

Longitude: 78.60363571015989

Country Location (linked Case Law): India

Decision Date: Feb 5, 2024

Case Status: In progress

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Affirmed Lower Court

Keywords

Defamation / Reputation
Digital Rights
Political Expression
Social Media

Judicial Body: Appellate Court

Court Name: Delhi High Court

Case Number: CRL. M.C. 6347/2019

Case Summary: The Delhi High Court ruled that public figures (or persons with a large public following) who retweet or repost defamatory material on social media can prima facie attract liability for criminal defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which provides sufficient basis for summoning them to trial as accused. Arvind Kejriwal, the incumbent Chief Minister of Delhi, and the petitioner in this case, retweeted an allegedly defamatory tweet by a YouTuber, accusing the IT Cell of the ruling Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) of corruption. A criminal defamation action was initiated against Kejriwal, and he was summoned by the presiding Trial Court. Kejriwal requested the Delhi High Court to quash the summoning order. In rejecting Kejriwal’s petition, the Delhi High Court reasoned that public figures must be held to a higher standard of accountability for their social media activity given their influence and ability to shape public opinion. The Court argued that, owing to their clout, public figures can inflict significant reputational injury by negligently reposting defamatory imputations and, therefore, should not be allowed to escape criminal liability merely for not authoring at-issue libelous material.

Case Significance: This ruling widens the scope of liability of public figures for criminal defamation. Seemingly, they can now be prosecuted for this offense simply for recirculating ostensibly defamatory material on social media, even without a showing of criminal intent to defame. From the judgment, it appears that intentionality is to be presumed when the person retweeting has significant influence or following. Obligating public figures to vet the authenticity of all content they repost could fetter their participation on social media and hamper the free exchange of information online, thereby chilling free expression. The Delhi High Court has also left the term “public figure” undefined, creating ambiguity regarding the applicability of its heightened accountability standard. This could result in a larger than intended section of the population self-censoring their social media activity to avoid prosecution.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Related Caselaw (self)

Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India

Related Law

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Jul 19, 2024

Primary Documents

Judgment
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Kejriwal v. State of India

Primary Documents

Notifications