Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, who represented the Chief Minister of Delhi, emphasized that the initial complaint was withdrawn and then re-filed after a period of nine months, with the details of the withdrawal concealed.
Table of Contents
Arvind Kejriwal Retweeted Dhruv Rathee’s Video:
On Monday, the Supreme Court stayed the trial court’s attempt to pursue a defamation lawsuit against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for his retweet of a YouTube video criticizing the IT cell of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Judges Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta’s bench postponed the hearing until March 11 and ordered that the trial court “will not take up the matter in the interim.”
Speaking on behalf of Mr. Kejriwal, senior attorney Abhishek Singhvi stated, “I can say this much: I made a mistake by retweeting.” The high court stated in its ruling on February 5 that reposting purportedly libellous content would be subject to the defamation statute.
Retweeting content that one does not know about requires a sense of responsibility, according to the high court. Retweeting defamatory content also exposes the person doing so to criminal, civil, and tort action if they fail to include a disclaimer.
In an appeal, Kejriwal was contesting the February 5 Delhi High order that upheld the summons that had been issued to him in the criminal defamation case for retweeting a purportedly offensive video that YouTuber Dhruv Rathee had posted in 2018. “Every retweet of defamatory imputation would ordinarily amount to ‘publication’ under IPC Section 499,” the statement stated.
What Advocate A M Singhvi Said:
Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, representing the Delhi Chief Minister, emphasized that the initial complaint was withdrawn and then re-filed after a nine-month period while concealing the withdrawal’s details. The mere act of retweeting on X constitutes defamation. Presummoning evidence is immediately recorded after this complaint. The complaint is then withdrawn. He said, “It was suppressed that the original complaint was withdrawn when it was refiled, nine months after the incident.”
Justice Khanna Statement:
Regarding retweeting, Justice Khanna stated that there are two possible opinions. Regarding retweets, one could view them from two perspectives: One is a recommendation. In the event that it is an endorsement, there might be repercussions. Another way to look at it is that you are simply sharing information that you found on the internet or a website, the judge said.
“That’s the exact point to be decided,” stated Singhvi. “Unfortunately, the High Court has taken the first view of retweets as endorsements,” he continued.
Justice Khanna questioned whether or not it would come down to evidence.
Answer To Justice Khanna:
Singhvi said, “There’s no problem in admitting that this was a mistake if he had known that these would be the consequences,” adding that he would be able to satisfy the court regarding the legal position.
Question to Advocate Raghav Awasthi:
After that, the bench questioned Advocate Raghav Awasthi, who was representing the complainant, about whether he would be open to the case being closed given Kejriwal’s admission that retweeting it was an error.
After Awasthi requested more time to obtain instructions, the bench adjourned the hearing.
Justice Conference:
“When a public figure tweets a defamatory post, the ramifications extend far beyond a mere whisper in someone’s ears,” the Justice Conference said in a statement regarding the case.
Given the petitioner’s background as a Chief Minister, it is imperative to acknowledge the inherent sense of responsibility that accompanies such a prominent political role. It further stated, “The petitioner is presumed to be aware of the potential impact of his actions, including retweets, on the public perception as a leader with political standing and maturity.”
Courts Decision:
The aggrieved party must ultimately determine “which retweet caused more harm to his reputation, lowered his moral or intellectual character or credibility among the members of society,” the High Court stated, even though “every retweet of defamatory imputation would ordinarily amount to ‘publication’ under IPC Section 499.” “Whether the retweet had the potential to defame the complainant is to be decided by the court,” the ruling stated.
“The trial court will decide whether the retweet had the potential to defame the complainant, based on material before it,” the court headed.
The chief minister stated in the high court that the complainant, Vikas Sankrityayan, was not the intended or likely recipient of his tweet, and that the trial court had overlooked this fact.
Kejriwal’s Appeal:
As per Mr. Kejriwal’s appeal before the high court, the trial court committed an error by failing to provide a rationale for the summons, and the orders were deemed to be ‘ex-facie’, meaning they lacked legal reasoning.
Rathee, a German resident, allegedly shared the YouTube video titled “BJP IT Cell Part II,” according to Mr. Sankrityayan, “wherein a number of false and defamatory allegations were made.”
Also Read: BTS’s Jungkook Breaking Records Becoming 1st and only Asian Artist
1 Comment
qv9v5m