interference at this stage by this court is likely to prejudice the findings of the Trial Court…” 6. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that whether a retweet is defamatory in content or not, so as to attract rigours of Section 499 of IPC, will of course be a matter of trial. However, whether ‘Retweeting’ by a person, a defamatory content, will amount to ‘publication’ or not so as to form the ingredient of Section 499 of IPC for the purpose of summoning of an accused, will essentially have to be decided prior to commencement of the trial. It is not the issue for adjudication before this Court in the present case to return a finding as to whether it was proved beyond doubt that the retweet in question was defamatory or not. The issue before this Court is the critical issue as to whether a retweet in itself, being not considered as original content by an original author, can form the basis of summoning an accused for offence under Section 499 of IPC. 7. This major issue being at the centre of controversy in multiple cases pending before this Court reveal the difficulties currently faced by Trial Courts in this regard and has persuaded this Court to take a comprehensive look at this issue for the purpose of summoning an accused. BACKGROUND FACTS 8. On 06.05.2018, one Sh. Dhruv Rathee i.e. original author of the impugned/alleged defamatory content had uploaded a video on YouTube, wherein inter alia, certain allegations were made against Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 5 of 50