Conversational Tweets On 'X' Thread Can't Be Assessed In Isolation To Determine Defamation: Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Of 'LawSikho'

The Delhi High Court has observed that the utterances in the nature of tweets in a conversational thread on X platform (formerly Twitter) are not to be assessed in isolation for determining the claim of defamation.

“The Court has to consider that nature of the medium (X) is casual and fast paced, conversational in character and an elaborate analysis of a 140-character tweet (or even more than that) may be disproportional,” Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said.

The Court added: “Importantly, the absorption by the reader and the reaction to the post is impressionistic and fleeting.”

Justice Arora rejected with Rs. 1 lakh a defamation plaint filed by Addictive Learning Technology Limited, parent company of Ed-Tech platform LawSikho, and its founder Ramanuj Mukherjee, aggrieved by tweets made by four individuals on X, alleging that they were harmful and derogatory.

The tweets formed part of two conversational threads initiated by two men on their personal handles. They found genesis in a tweet which was published by the second plaintiff on his personal handle. The plaint said that the plaintiff's tweet was made with the intention to motivate law students who may not have the financial means to attend top National Law Universities (NLUs).

While rejecting the plaint, the Court that the cause of action, if any, of the plaintiffs qua each of defendants was separate and distinct. It added there was absolutely no relation between the two Conversation Threads, except that they began independently in response to the Lead Tweet published by plaintiff no.2.

The Court said that 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.

It added that the plaintiffs failed to avail the statutory remedy available to them under the Information Technology Rules of 2021 immediately or any time thereafter and thus, the pleas of defamation raised in the plaint were without any merit.

“The Impugned Tweets cannot be read in isolation and have to be read in the entire conversation thread of which they form part of and the plaintiff cannot ignore its own provocative tweets, which led to and/or form part of the relevant Conversation Thread,” the Court said.

Justice Arora concluded that the plaintiffs had the remedy under IT Rules 2021 to seek removal of any Tweet which they perceive as an abuse or an insult.

However, the Court added, that the impugned tweets by the defendants did not tantamount to defamation as they were a direct result of deliberate taunting and provocation by the plaintiff no.2.

“….a person cannot be penalized for holding an opinion and a cause of action for the aggrieved would only arise if such opinion is translated into action i.e. results in injury or harm or loss to the aggrieved. Ergo, substantial injury has to be established by the aggrieved party,” the Court said.

It added: “The Court notes that a plaintiff alleging defamation on social media platform arising out of a conversation thread must mandatorily disclose the full conversation thread, particularly his own tweets/comments as well and should approach the Court with clean hands.”

Title: ADDICTIVE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY LIMITED & ANR v. ADITYA GARG & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 224

Click here to read order