Social media users should have broad shoulders to bear criticisms: Delhi HC

The users of social media platforms should have broad shoulders to bear criticisms as a post published is bound to be either appreciated or criticised, the Delhi high court observed while dismissing a defamation suit against four X handles.

The bench of justice Manmeet PS Arora dismissed the defamation suit filed by online legal education platform Law Sikho, which accused four individuals of posting “defamatory” tweets in reply to a post by one of their officials, which had described National Law University (NLU) graduates as “incompetent”.

The court said that Law Sikho official’s tweet was published with an intent to elicit responses from the audience and fell within the parameters of “online trolling”.

In his tweet, the Law Sikho official alleged that top law firms hire allegedly incompetent NLU graduates through direct campus placements, sparking a backlash from NLU alumni.

The platform argued that the lead tweet was posted in good faith with the intention of shedding light on a “significant trend in the legal industry impacting law students, law firms and educational institutions”.

It said the “reactionary tweets were harmful, derogatory and defamed it in cyberspace.”

The suit argued by advocate Raghav Awasthi went on to add that the tweets also had the potential to harm its reputation, financial stability and posed a significant threat to the value of its share listed on the National Stock Exchange as well as undermined the trust of the investors.

While one of the individuals, a law graduate from NLU Kolkata and a practicing advocate, represented by advocate Himanshu Bhushan, submitted that the official’s tweet was provocative and intended to engage other X users to respond to the lead tweet.

The judge in her February 20 verdict, which was released on Saturday, observed that the lead tweet fell within the parameters of “online trolling”-- “a mode through which users intentionally publish posts on social media handles to provoke emotional response for increasing the followers and social media presence” -- and noted that the tweets were published with an intent to elicit response from the audience.

The Law Sikho official, justice Arora said, initially did not take offence to the tweets but later decided to file the suit once other users joined the conversation and trolled the former.

While imposing a cost of ₹1 lakh on the platform, justice Aroara in her verdict said, “The Lead Tweet of the plaintiff no. 2 (LawSikho official), which comments upon NLUs, its professors and the calibre of the students who graduate from the NLUs and are hired through direct campus placements has the characteristics of proactive/provocative trolling. The plaintiff no. 2 initially did not take offence to the impugned tweets of defendant nos. 1 and 2. In fact, plaintiff no.2’s responses to the impugned tweets showed that plaintiff no. 2 was pleased with the reactions of defendant nos. 1 and 2, as the Lead Tweet has had an intended effect. However, subsequently when other users on ‘X’ joined the said conversation threads and trolled Plaintiff no. 2, the same appears to have led the plaintiff no. 2 to form an opinion that the impugned tweets are defamatory and led to filing of this suit.”

“A post published on a social media platform is bound either to be appreciated or criticised and the user has to have broad shoulders to bear the criticism,” the judge said.

In her 54-page ruling, justice Arora also held that a person cannot be penalised for holding an opinion and a cause of action with regards to defamation would only arise if the opinion resulted in injury or harm or loss to the aggrieved.

The suit, the judge said, was filed without merit, since the platform failed to avail the remedy available under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guideline and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 of filing protest against the allegedly defamatory tweet with the grievance officer and approached the court more than a month after posting of the said tweets.