of the act in question. When a vast majority follows a particular person on twitter, not all, may be aware of the nitty gritties of tweets or retweets. Most common persons who follow a person, who may be an influencer for a particular segment of community will find it enough reason to believe a content just because the content is posted on account of a particular person. 66. This Court, while trying to lay down foundational stone on jurisprudence of retweeting, and whether it amounts to publication or not for the purpose of Section 499 of IPC, presents the following scenario to explain the reasons weighing in this Court‟s mind as to why this Court holds that retweeting amounts to publication for the purpose of Section 499 of IPC: Consider an individual, Z, who commands a specific group of followers, who regularly engage with his tweets. Z could potentially evade legal repercussions by instructing one of his followers to post defamatory content or by creating a fake account for the same purpose. Subsequently, the content is reposted on Z‟s account, garnering a substantial audience. In such a scenario, the crux of the concern lies in the fact that if the law only holds the original author accountable, it creates an avenue for individuals like Z to escape the clutches of law. Despite being the one actively disseminating the defamatory material on his account, Z might escape punishment if the focus is solely on the initial creator of the content. If the law fails to address situations where the true culprit is the one Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 39 of 50