Can WhatsApp Group Posts Be Defamatory? Delhi Court Says Yes, Awards ₹60k Damages to Retd Army Officer

Civil Judge Nishant Bangarh of the Dwarka Courts passed the ruling in a civil suit filed by Colonel B. S. Chaudhary (Retd.) and his son Jasbir Chaudhary against one R.N. Yadav, a fellow resident of Shivalik Apartments in Dwarka.

The case was rooted in messages Yadav posted in Shivalik Friends Forum, a WhatsApp group comprising society residents.

The plaintiffs argued that the posts, which were shared during the 2022 managing committee elections, were intended to malign their reputation. They sought damages of Rs. 1 lakh, a permanent injunction against further defamatory conduct, and a mandatory direction requiring Yadav to tender an apology in the same forum.

After examining the evidence, the Court partly allowed the suit by granting damages of Rs. 60,000, restraining Yadav from making further false or defamatory allegations, and directing him to publish an unconditional apology in the WhatsApp group.

The Court observed that an individual’s reputation is an essential part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Judge Bangarh remarked: “Every individual is vested with an intrinsic right to reputation which has been recognized as integral part of right of life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, no one can be allowed to harm the reputation of the other person. Accordingly, the case of injunction is also made out in favour of the plaintiffs.”

The Court found that the defendant’s messages were not mere comments about society affairs but were intended to personally target the Chaudharys. The posts accused them of non-cooperation with the managing committee, failing to work for the welfare of residents, shifting society property near their home for personal benefit, misbehaving with children, and threatening a contractor.

The Judge held that these allegations were serious enough to cause significant damage to the plaintiffs’ standing. The Court further observed: “It clearly appears that defendant was trying to disclose the conduct of plaintiffs for the purpose of harming their reputation for gaining advantage in the elections.”

The Court placed considerable weight on Colonel Chaudhary’s service record and societal position. Highlighting the esteem enjoyed by retired Army officers, the Judge said, “He has earned a notable position for himself in the society though he has already been retired, but the person of his stature are held in high esteem in the society and also considered to be role model by others in society. Levelling allegations of misbehaving with the person holding higher post in hierarchy of committee i.e. a lady president, dents the very foundation of the personality of the army officer, because Indian Army is regarded an institution in which strict adherence to the protocol of respecting senior officer is observed with utmost sincerity.”

The Court found that imputations of misconduct and lack of cooperation not only tarnished the personal dignity of the officer and his son but also affected their social standing, given the high regard in which the Army as an institution is held.

While the Chaudharys had initially sought damages of Rs. 1 lakh, the Court limited compensation to rs. 60,000, which it considered appropriate in light of the circumstances.

At the same time, the Court emphasized the importance of a corrective public act by ordering Yadav to post an unconditional apology in the same WhatsApp group. The apology, the Court said, would serve both as a remedy to the plaintiffs and as a deterrent against similar conduct in the future.

The Court concluded by restraining Yadav from making any further defamatory or false remarks against the plaintiffs.

By treating the WhatsApp group as a “public domain” owing to the number of members, the Court reaffirmed that defamatory statements on such platforms carry the same legal consequences as those made in more traditional public forums.