Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Monday, declined to quash a criminal defamation case against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for retweeting a video titled 'BJP IT Cell Part 2', created by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, in May 2018.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld a trial court's order summoning Kejriwal, stating that retweeting defamatory content does amount to defamation.

The court said, "At times, it is difficult to erase the reputational injury from public memory, as the tweets may be deleted, but perceptions are difficult to be deleted from the minds of the community."

The case was initiated by Vikas Sankrityan, also known as Vikas Pandey, a purported supporter of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and founder of the social media page 'I Support Narendra Modi'. The video by Rathee accused Pandey of being the second-in-command of the BJP IT cell and offering Rs. 50 lakh to someone named Mahavir Prasad to retract allegations of spreading lies and fake news against the ruling party's IT cell.

In his defense, Kejriwal argued that Pandey did not prosecute the original author of the video (Dhruv Rathee) and others who retweeted, liked, and commented on it, indicating malice on Pandey's part. Kejriwal's counsel contended that there was "no evidence" proving Kejriwal's intent to harm Pandey's reputation and thus challenged the defamation case.

Court rejected Kejriwal's plea, emphasizing that Kejriwal, with a significant Twitter following, understood the implications of retweeting the video.

"While the petitioner may plead absence of any malicious intent in the act of retweeting, the Court has to consider the responsibility that accompanies the petitioner's political and social standing. Needless to say, the large social media following of a Chief Minister of a State undoubtedly implies a wider reach, making any retweet a form of public endorsement or acknowledgment," the court said. 

The judge opined that the online interactions and engagement on Twitter, which involve the publication of defamatory statements and content and sharing such content with others by retweeting, will surely attract liability since it would amount to posting defamatory content as one's own by believing it to be true and thus sharing it with the public at large.

The court said that in this evolving digital age, physical damage to someone's reputation is not the only possibility; it is the cyber world that now has taken over the real world, where if any defamatory statement is made, the effect of reputational harm is amplified.

"In the realm of defamation, statements made in the physical world may resemble a mere whisper, but when echoed in the cyber domain, the impact magnifies exponentially," it added. 

The case stems from the video's accusations that Pandey offered money to Prasad, which Kejriwal shared on May 7, 2018, without verifying the allegations' authenticity.

Kejriwal received the summons on July 17, 2019, and subsequently approached the High Court, seeking the quashing of the case. 

Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. State & Anr.