Delhi Court Fines NDTV Anchor Gargi Rawat ₹10,000 in Abhijit Iyer-Mitra Defamation Case

The order was passed on September 8 by District Judge Satyabrata Panda of the Patiala House Courts in a suit filed by Iyer-Mitra in 2019.

While Iyer-Mitra had sought Rs. 20 lakh in damages, the Court limited the compensation to Rs. 10,000, citing mitigating factors, including the plaintiff’s own history of making controversial remarks on social media.

The controversy stemmed from a December 2019 article authored by Iyer-Mitra for The Print titled “In Rana Ayyub, the White West has found its next Arundhati Roy.” Following the publication, journalist Rana Ayyub tweeted that the article was a “hitjob.” In response, Mumbai-based lawyer Dushyant Arora replied to Ayyub’s tweet, claiming that Iyer-Mitra had been accused of rape and “routinely engages in hate speech.”

Rawat, who was not the author of the statement, liked Arora’s tweet. Iyer-Mitra argued that this act of endorsement meant the defamatory content was visible on Rawat’s Twitter profile, making it accessible to her followers and others who visited her page.

Iyer-Mitra subsequently filed a defamation suit against both Arora and Rawat, seeking an injunction and damages of Rs. 20 lakh.

During the proceedings, Arora and Iyer-Mitra settled their dispute, with Arora issuing a public apology on Twitter. He stated: “I hereby apologize to Abhijit Iyer Mitra for insinuation that he has been accused of rape and admit that the same has no basis in fact.”

The matter, however, continued against Rawat.

Rawat argued that Iyer-Mitra was an “attention seeker” who had himself engaged in provocative, abusive, and obscene speech on social media. She contended that while she had liked the tweet in question, there was no proof that anyone had actually accessed the defamatory content through her profile. She also stressed that the defamatory tweet had been liked, retweeted, and commented on by several others, and it was unfair for Iyer-Mitra to selectively proceed against her.

Rejecting Rawat’s arguments, the Court held that liking the tweet amounted to republication under defamation law. “In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no manner of doubt that the act of the defendant no.2 in ‘liking’ the original defamatory tweet in question amounted to republication and, as a result, the defendant no.2 (Gargi Rawat) is liable for the tort of defamation,” the Court observed.

The Court further noted that Rawat had evaded cross-examination on the number of followers she had at the relevant time and whether any of them had viewed the defamatory tweet. An adverse inference, it said, had to be drawn from her refusal to step into the witness box.

Although the Court found the allegation grave, it considered Iyer-Mitra’s own controversial reputation before reducing the damages. “He has, on various occasions, indulged in making objectionable, derogatory and reprehensible comments against various persons or sections of society through his social media posts. These facts would be relevant in considering the general conduct and reputation of the plaintiff for deciding the quantum of damages,” the Court remarked.

Accordingly, the Court directed Rawat to pay Rs. 10,000 in damages to Iyer-Mitra within two weeks, failing which the amount would accrue 6% annual interest until realization. It also ordered that, if still available, the liked tweet must be permanently removed from her Twitter/X profile. “In the result, decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2 for damages of Rs. 10,000/- only,” the judgment concluded.

Furthermore, the Court ordered, "In case this amount of damages is not paid within a period of two weeks from the date of the present judgment, then the amount of damages shall also carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the judgment/decree till the actual realisation. It is further directed that, in case the impugned tweet is still showing on the profile or timeline of the defendant no.2 on the Twitter/X platform, then the same be permanently deleted and/or removed."