The Delhi High Court on Monday upheld the summons issued to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal as an accused in a criminal defamation case for retweeting an allegedly defamatory video circulated by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in May 2018.
Retweeting a social media post containing defamatory content will constitute defamation under Section 499 of the IPC, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated while refusing to quash the trial court’s 2019 order summoning Kejriwal. The court also emphasized that some sense of responsibility must be attached while retweeting content on social media when a person lacks knowledge about it.
The AAP leader had challenged two orders of the trial court regarding the refusal to quash the summons. The high court had previously stayed trial court proceedings in the case.
A magistrate’s court had summoned Kejriwal to appear in August 2019 after a criminal complaint by the founder of the social media page, “I Support Narendra Modi,” alleging that the AAP leader had retweeted the defamatory video.
The high court declared on Monday that retweeting should attract penal, civil, and tort action. When retweeting is done by political figures, including the chief minister, with a larger social media presence, the retweets become a public endorsement that can be believed by the public, the court noted.
The court highlighted that the concept of publication, traditionally limited to printed material, must be examined in the context of virtual platforms, and the legal system must align with social media.
It asserted that online interaction on social media, including sharing any post with others by retweeting, incurs liability for the offense of defamation. The court stated that if the AAP leader wishes to justify his act of retweeting the video, it can be done during the trial.
The chief minister had previously challenged the magistrate’s order before a sessions court, which dismissed his plea. He then contested the sessions court’s order in the high court, arguing that the trial court failed to appreciate that his tweet was not intended or likely to harm complainant Vikas Sankrityayan.
The plea argued that the trial court erred in not providing any reasons for issuing the summons, and the orders were ‘ex-facie’ devoid of the judicial application of mind.
Sankrityayan claimed that the YouTube video titled “BJP IT Cell Part II” was circulated by Rathee, who resides in Germany, “wherein a number of false and defamatory allegations were made.” Regarding Kejriwal, he stated that the chief minister retweeted without checking its authenticity.
“The complainant alleges that the allegations made against him in this video are false, malicious, and defamatory and it has lowered the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. So far, no proof has been tendered on the allegations,” Sankrityayan’s complaint said.
He added that Kejriwal is followed by crores of people, “due to which the video has reached a large number of people not only in India but also internationally.”
