Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Friday, noted that a thin line distinction exists between defamation and public criticism. The court opined that even though the right to free speech and expression is paramount, it cannot justify defaming or bringing disrepute to someone. 

“While the threshold of public criticism and alleged defamatory X posts/Tweets and YouTube videos on intermediary platforms is much higher, but the individual dignity and honour of a person cannot be allowed to be defamed or disrepute brought to him on the ground of Right of Free Speech and Expression. A thin line of distinction exists between defamation and public criticism and an onerous task lies with the Courts to maintain this delicate balance between the competing claims and rights”, the bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held.

Rajat Sharma, a well-known Indian journalist and TV anchor as well as Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of M/s Independent News Service Private Limited (INDIA TV), filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against congress leaders. The case stemmed from a televised debate on India TV Channel, where congress leaders allegedly misrepresented Rajat’s conduct and circulated edited footage on social media.

Represented by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, Rajat Sharma asserted that no abusive language was used during the debate and accused the congress leaders of spreading falsehoods, causing significant damage to reputation. 

The court noted that Rajat Sharma, a respected senior journalist, was performing his professional duties during a debate on Lok Sabha Elections. Subsequently, congress leaders made statements against him on 'X' (formerly 'Twitter') and in a press conference on June 10 and 11, 2024, alleging abusive language during a live telecast on June 4, 2024. Upon review of the footage in court, it was clear that Sharma had only briefly intervened and did not use abusive language.

The court held that while public criticism and postings on intermediary platforms like X carry a higher threshold, personal dignity, and reputation cannot be undermined under the guise of free speech. The courts are tasked with balancing these competing rights.

Furthermore, the bench observed that despite no abuse from Rajat Sharma, subsequent videos and posts misrepresented the facts, potentially damaging Sharma’s reputation. Given these considerations, the court finds that allowing the videos and posts to remain in the public domain would cause irreparable harm to Sharma’s reputation as a journalist. 

The court observed, “The irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff for if the videos and Tweets, etc as mentioned above, is allowed to be in the public domain, it would continue to cause harm to his reputation as a respectable Journalist which would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff”,

The court reiterated that granting an ex parte injunction should occur only under exceptional circumstances. It outlined several factors to consider: whether irreparable harm would occur to the plaintiff, whether denying the injunction would result in greater injustice, the timing of the plaintiff's notice of the issue, any acquiescence by the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff approached the court in good faith, and whether the injunction would be temporary.

“The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff for the simple reason that by making these videos private or injuncting them from being available on the public platforms, would not, in any way, infringe on the rights of the defendants of freedom of speech and expression which they can, in any case, exercise within the defined parameters”, the court further added. 

Accordingly, the court directed the removal of such defamatory posts from X (formerly known as Twitter)

Case Title: Rajat Sharma v X corp