The case had a mixed outcome on the freedom of expression. It expanded expression as it allowed the administrator of the whistleblowing platform Herdsceneand to remain anonymous. However, it also contracted expression in a number of ways. Firstly, it granted an ex-parte order akin to a right to be forgotten order in favour of the plaintiff on the first date of hearing. This order and observation are bound to have negative (albeit unquantifiable) implications in other defamation cases where plaintiffs may use this precedent to gag speech even while a trial is ongoing. Secondly, by observing that granting anonymity to speakers was antithetical to the concept of judicial fairness, it jeopardised a crucial aspect of the freedom of expression that is the right to express anonymously especially in sensitive cases. Lastly, given that the final outcome of the case was that Herdsceneand had to remove the post and express regret, the case would likely have a discouraging effect on victims of sexual harassment and for the health of the #MeToo movement in India in general.
The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.
As a decision of a single-judge bench of Delhi High Court, the decision is binding on all authorities and lower courts in New Delhi.