Social Media Followers, Speed With Which Messages Are Disseminated Relevant While Deciding Application For Deleting Tweets: Madras High Court

The plaintiff stated that the first defendant has about 83800 followers on his twitter account and also provided information regarding the number of likes and re-tweets in respect of each impugned tweet. 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.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy looked into each of the 17 alleged tweets and the Youtube videos posted by Kumar which according to Balaji were defamatory in nature. The court concluded that six of the tweets were “per se defamatory” while the remaining related to the “public function” of Balaji as the Minister. The court thus ordered for removal of the said six tweets.

Balaji had approached the court contending that he was in the public life for more than two decades and had a high reputation in the society. He argued that the tweets made by Kumar had crosse the boundaries of fair comment and were defamatory thus damaging his reputation. It was also contended that the tweets should be removed pending disposal of the main suit as they were likely to cause irreparable injury to Balaji’s reputation.

On the other hand, Kumar argued that his tweets were based on a speech made by Chief Minister and other news reports about involvement of Balaji in various offences and scams. He thus submitted that Balaji did not enjoy a reputation for honesty and integrity even prior to the tweets. He further argued that an action for libel will not be maintainable unless it is made in “reckless disregard for the truth”.

The court went into the meaning of “reckless disregard for the truth” and noted that it would include all defamatory statements made without any verification. This need for verification, according to the court, was not inconsistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.

By taking into account the overall constitutional and statutory context in India, Auto Shankar and the definition of 'reckless disregard', 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…I am inclined to the view that imposing the obligation to verify the veracity of the statement before publication is not inconsistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression provided the verification bar is not set high and, more importantly, the defendant is not saddled with the obligation of proving the truth of the statements.

The court added that even though actual malice cannot be determined at the interlocutory stage, the defamatory materials cannot be permitted to continue till the final disposal as these would cause serious damage to one’s reputation. The court noted that in the context of social media, this damage was high because of the high frequency and the interactive nature of the platforms.

Thus, the court granted interim injunction with respect to the defamatory tweets and further restricted Kumar from publishing or disseminating anything which directly or indirectly alleged by Balaji. However, this order was not to come in the way of Kumar making statements after due verification and backed by evidences.

Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v. Nirmal Kumar and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 117