A Patiala House Court judge fined NDTV journalist Gargi Rawat Rs. 10,000 yesterday, for liking an allegedly defamatory tweet. Judge Satyabrata Panda ruled that liking a defamatory tweet was akin to republishing it, therefore making one liable for the same offence.
What Was The Complaint About?
The suit was filed by political commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra, against lawyer Dushyant Arora, after the latter posted a tweet in 2019 stating, “The man has been accused of rape, he routinely engages in hate speech.”
For context, when a person makes a post on X (formerly Twitter), it becomes available to all their followers. Arora’s tweet was liked by Rawat, which also made the post available to her followers. Hence, the allegedly defamatory material authored and published by Arora was further published by Rawat.
Mitra’s suit asked for damages of Rs. 20 lakh from Rawat and Arora, alongside a permanent injunction barring them from publishing defamatory content.
Arora subsequently settled the lawsuit in January 2020 and posted an apology to Mitra on his X (formerly Twitter) account, acknowledging that his statements were not based in fact. The court dismissed the suit against him in December that year.
What Did The Plaintiff Argue?
The plaintiff argued that actions such as retweeting or liking defamatory content constitute publication of that material, making the person performing such acts equally liable alongside the original author.
The counsel noted that while Arora, who authored the original tweet, had deleted the defamatory content and offered an apology, the plaintiff was still able to pursue other defendants who had republished the defamatory tweet.
The plaintiff presented evidence through three witnesses, who the counsel argued proved both the plaintiff’s good reputation and the damage caused by the defendants’ statements.
Additionally, the plaintiff emphasised that proving actual financial loss was not mandatory in such cases, citing previous judgements like Major General M.S. Ahluwalia v. M/S. Tehelka.com & Ors. They also argued that the court should discard Rawat’s testimony as she had not submitted herself to cross-examination.
What Did The Defendant Argue?
Rawat’s lawyer argued that since the plaintiff had withdrawn the suit against Arora, no cause of action remained against her. Additionally, they contended that Mitra was unable to prove any loss of reputation or harm caused by the liking of a tweet, as he was neither demoted, nor was his salary cut, or any of his articles taken down. He was also unable to substantiate his monetary demand of Rs. 20 lakh.
Thirdly, the defendant called Mitra an “attention seeker” who routinely engaged in abusive as well as indecent language against others and was the target of a number of lawsuits. Thus he had not been able to establish his own reputation.
The defendant also emphasised that liking a tweet was not the same as retweeting it,…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
