affecting the right of the people not to be defamed. 62. In case, the act of retweeting or reposting is allowed to be misused since it is still considered to be a vacant grey area of law where the sapling of jurisprudence as to whether retweeting defamatory content will be considered publication or not is yet to take place, it will encourage people with ill intentions to misuse this vacant field of law and therefore, despite retweeting the defamatory content, the accused can thereafter conveniently take a plea that he had merely retweeted a content. 63. In this background, this Court holds that retweeting or reposting defamatory content, without any disclaimer as to whether the person so retweeting agrees or disagrees or has verified the content so posted or not, and as to whether he projected to the world at large, who care to follow him, that he believes the content to be true so shared, a person would be republishing the original defamatory content which has the potential of lowering the moral or intellectual character or credit of a person. 64. A sense of responsibility has to be attached while retweeting content about which one does not have knowledge. Since in case reputational injury is caused by defaming a person, the person doing so by retweeting must attract penal, civil or tort action against him in absence of any disclaimer. 65. If we assume that the law exclusively attributes harm to the original author of a post in cases of defamation, a potential loophole emerges. Any case has to be adjudicated in its accompanying circumstances and the background of not only the facts but the actors Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 38 of 50