Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed a defamation suit filed by Addictive Learning Technology Limited (Addictive Learning) seeking a permanent injunction and damages concerning tweets published by defendants nos. 1 (Aditya Garg), 2, 4, and 5 on the social media platform ‘X’ (formerly Twitter). 

However, the bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held, “X as a social media platform is dynamic and interactive and a single impugned tweet should not be considered by Courts in isolation to ascribe meaning to what is said and also to decide whether such words are defamatory or not”. 

Addictive Learning argued that the defendants’ actions threatened their reputation, financial stability, and stock value. They sought a permanent injunction against the defendants from making further posts and requested damages. 

Defendant no. 2 contested the suit, arguing that no cause of action arose against him as Impugned Tweet No. 4 did not reference plaintiff no. 1. He claimed his statement was an honest opinion based on professional experience. He further alleged that plaintiff no. 2 frequently filed lawsuits to suppress negative reviews. 

The court observed that the plaintiffs’ cause of action against defendants 1, 2, 4, and 5 was distinct and unrelated. The two conversation threads arose independently from plaintiff no. 2’s Lead Tweet, which criticized National Law Universities (NLUs) and questioned the competence of their graduates hired through campus placements. 

The court noted that each impugned tweet had to be assessed separately to determine whether a cause of action for defamation existed against the respective defendants. The plaintiffs did not seek a permanent injunction to remove the impugned tweets from the X platform.

The court noted that the Lead Tweet by plaintiff no. 2 triggered responses from defendant nos. 1 and 2, both NLU alumni, leading to two separate conversation threads. The court examined whether these tweets fell within the definition of "Online Trolling" as discussed in a study published by Sage Publications. The study described trolling as a strategy to provoke emotional responses and increase social media engagement. Plaintiff no. 2 actively engaged in the exchanges, initially enjoying the reactions. However, when other users joined and trolled plaintiff no. 2, they deemed the responses defamatory and filed the suit. The court concluded that the tweets displayed characteristics of proactive and reactive trolling.

The court further examined the provisions of defamation noting that it has been defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the same definition remained unchanged in Section 356 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Relying on the case of Nidhi Bhatnagar v Citi Bank N.A, the court distinguished between words that merely hurt a plaintiff’s feelings and those that incite adverse opinions against them. It held that for a defamation claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s words significantly harmed their dignity in society’s view.  

Furthermore, the court noted a significant legal development in 2021 that granted social media users a statutory remedy against defamatory or harassing posts. Under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules 2021), an aggrieved user could file a complaint with the platform’s ‘Grievance Officer,’ appointed under Rule 3(2) and Rule 4(1)(c). The decision of the Grievance Officer could be appealed before the ‘Grievance Appellate Committee’ established under Rule 3A. The redressal process was time-bound.  

In the present case, the court noted that the plaintiffs did not utilize this remedy and instead filed a suit on 12.07.2024. The case concerned alleged defamation on a conversational social media platform, ‘X’ (formerly Twitter). The court noted that defamation jurisprudence for newspapers and magazines could not be directly applied to social media due to its casual and fast-paced nature. Unlike traditional media, users of ‘X’ did not perceive it as a reliable source of information.

“In the case of newspapers and magazines, the readers presumably attach seriousness to the content published by the author/writer and rely upon it for information. The newspapers and magazines are read with the intent to collect and retain information and, therefore, it bears effect in forming of opinions. In contrast, the casual medium of a conversational social media platform such as ‘X’ is not perceived by the users of the said platform as a reliable verified source of information”, the court emphasized. 

The court observed that the tweets in question were reactionary and did not intend to harm the plaintiff’s reputation. The court found no direct legal injury and ruled that the defamation test was not satisfied. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ delay in filing the suit suggested they did not initially perceive the tweets as defamatory. 

The court ruled that Impugned Tweet Nos. 1 to 6 did not amount to defamation, as they resulted from deliberate provocation by Plaintiff No. 2. The nature of tweets as conversational and fleeting was acknowledged, and the court held that tweets should not be assessed in isolation. It distinguished between defamation and vulgar abuse, recognizing the casual nature of online interactions. 

The court observed that plaintiffs failed to establish substantial injury and fully disclose conversation threads in defamation claims. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaint with costs of ₹1,00,000 payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

For Plaintiff: Advocate Raghav Awasthi
For Defendant no 2: Advocates Himanshu Bhushan and Shagun Srivastava
Case Title: Addictive Learning Technology Limited v Aditya Garg (2025:DHC:1178)