The Madras High Court recently stated that the social media presence of an accused in a defamation case includes aspects like follower count, social media views, etc.
Relevant considerations deciding interlocutory applications that include applications for deletion of posts, tweets, and videos.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy made the observation while temporarily restraining Nirmal Kumar, former State President of the BJP’s IT wing, from making unsubstantiated allegations of corruption against DMK minister Senthil Balaji.
Notably, Nirmal Kumar had 83,800 Twitter followers and his posts were viewed and shared by a large number of people.
The High Court stated that “In my view, the speed and frequency with which messages can be disseminated to users of social media platforms and the interactive nature of these platforms would be a material consideration, especially for the purpose of deciding interlocutory applications, including applications for deletion of the tweets and the video.”
However, the judge, clarified that this injunction will not stand in Kumar’s way of making any new allegations against Balaji as long as such allegations are backed by facts or evidence.
While passing the order, Justice Ramamoorthy analyzed what constitutes actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.
The Court examined all of the 17 tweets posted by Kumar in 2022 that Balaji claimed were defamatory. It also went through the contested Youtube videos posted by Kumar.
It concluded that of these, six tweets were “per se defamatory,” while the rest pertained strictly to allegations on the Minister’s public functions and were based on published news reports, statistics, etc. The six defamatory tweets, the High Court said, had been made with complete disregard for the truth.
Justice Ramamoorthy stated that “In my view, the contours of ‘reckless disregard for the truth’ would encompass all defamatory statements made without being concerned as to whether such statements are true or false, such as where such statements were made without any verification.”
He directed Kumar to delete the 6 tweets and one defamatory Youtube video.
Further, the Court said that while it wasn’t possible to definitely determine actual malice at an interlocutory stage, the said posts were likely to cause “significant damage” to Balaji’s reputation until the final disposal of the defamation suit filed by him.
