Doxing Can Result In Privacy Violation If Unchecked, Individuals Can't Be Rendered Remediless: Delhi HC On Woman's Plea Who Tweeted About Politician

While dealing with a woman's suit who posted a tweet on X (formerly Twitter) about an interview of a political figure and was later doxed by various individuals and entities, the Delhi High Court has observed that doxing, if permitted to go on unchecked, could result in violation of right to privacy.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that aggrieved parties or individuals in cases of doxing cannot be rendered remedyless, because the individual would have suffered an injury as the privacy of the individual is breached.

The court said that the omnipresent nature of the internet, coupled with easy access to technology has ensured that a person's real and virtual lives are merged. It added that whatever happens online has very real life i.e., offline repercussions for a subject.

“The internet affords a comparatively large audience, thereby statistically increasing the chances of any violence occuring in response to Doxing, and so when a subject's information is floated on air for the entire world to peruse, especially in certain serious situations threats and violent calls may crop up from any part of the world,” the court said.

It added that Doxing is different from other forms of cyber-bullying and cyber- harassment, as the risk of putting the subject in physical danger increases exponentially.

“When a potential offender gets hold of the subject's personal information, such as where she lives, it becomes easier for him to translate online threats into real life violence. On the other hand, however, any information which is openly available or accessible is used for legitimate purposes, there can be no complaint. Thus, the Court has to strike a delicate balance between access to open information and safeguarding of privacy,” the court said.

It was the woman's case that it was a case of doxing as various Defendants in the suit had searched for and published private information about her on the internet with malicious intent.

She contended that in some of the tweets against her, her entire professional identity, photographs, image was disclosed and an email was written to her employer.

Justice Singh said that the woman was a professional person against whom various comments were being made on the internet which were offensive, defamatory and derogatory.

The court said that though the initial tweet of the woman may have been the cause, but considering her professional and personal standing, the offending tweets, at this stage, ought to be removed from X inasmuch as harm could be caused to her reputation.

However, it observed that the case did not fully constitute a suit against “Doxing” as the woman's identity was not completely anonymous, as anyone who knew her could have easily figured that the tweet was by her, due to her initials and her photograph in the tweet posted by her.

It added that it does not mean that she can be harassed or trolled on the internet in a manner so as to cause her harassment or embarrassment especially, by writing to her employer etc.

Accordingly, noting that the woman's posts were taken down, the court directed that the five tweets posted by the defendants against her be taken down by X.

“In addition, Defendant No.9 i.e., 'X' shall reveal the basic subscriber information of the alleged tweets of Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 to the Plaintiff within one week,” the court said.

It added: “Defendant No.10 i.e., 'Google LLC' shall reveal, within one week, the details of Defendant No.8 in whose favour the said Gmail address is registered. The information disclosed shall be used only for the purpose of legal proceedings.”

Counsel for Plaintiff: Mr. Raghav Awasthi & Mr. Kunal Tiwari, Advs

Counsel for Defendants: Mr. Deepak Gogia and Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal, Advs. for D-9; Mr. Neel Mason, Mr. Vihan Dang, Ms. Pragya Jain & Mr. Aditya Mathur, Advs. for D-10

Title: X v. SQUINT NEON & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 248

Click Here To Read Order