By Hera Rizwan
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, on Monday, agreed to admit before the Supreme Court that he made a mistake in retweeting an allegedly defamatory video in May 2018, originally posted by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee.
The justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, part of the bench, abstained from issuing a notice on Kejriwal's plea challenging a Delhi High Court decision that upheld the summons against him in this criminal defamation case. They intent to thoroughly examine the case before making any decision.
The hearing for this case is expected to take place on March 11.
Also Read:Deactivation Or Technical Fault: What Do We Know About West Bengal Aadhaar Row?
What is the case about?
In 2018, Rathee tweeted a video, accusing the founder and operator of a Twitter page named 'I Support Narendra Modi' of acting like 'BJP IT CELL Part-2'. Kejriwal retweeted this post, resulting in Vikas Pandey, a social media page operator, filing a defamation complaint against the Delhi CM.
The disputed video featured an interview by Dhruv Rathee with Mahavir Prasad, alleging that the complainant, Pandey, had supposedly offered Rs 50 lakhs through an intermediary to Prasad to retract his accusations regarding the BJP IT cell spreading falsehoods and fake news.
Rathee uploaded the interview in two segments on his YouTube channel, with the titles "BJP IT Cell Insider Interview" (Parts 1 and 2) on March 10, 2018, and May 7, 2018, respectively. The second video received a retweet from Kejriwal.
Pandey alleged that the video contained false and defamatory claims against him. He also argued that Kejriwal's vast online following facilitated the video's dissemination not only in India but globally.
Subsequently, summons were issued to Kejriwal by a Delhi court after considering the complaint. Kejriwal, in turn, contested the summons in the Delhi High Court, arguing that the trial court overlooked the fact that his tweet was not meant or likely to cause harm to the complainant.
The Delhi HC refused to quash the summons and held that “the large social media following of a chief minister of a state undoubtedly implies a wider reach, making any retweet, a form of public endorsement or acknowledgment”.
On February 5, the high court stated that retweeting should result in penal, civil, and tort actions. The court believed that when retweets are carried out by political figures, including the chief minister, with a substantial social media following, they transform into public endorsements, influencing public belief.
The high court emphasised the need to reassess the concept of publication, traditionally confined to printed material, in the context of virtual platforms, asserting that the legal system should adapt to the dynamics of social media.
Also Read:84% Indians Check Phones Within 15 Minutes Of Waking Up: Report
What has the Supreme court said?
The defamation plea was heard by the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, on Monday. The apex court asked whether the defamation case filed against Delhi Chief Minister for retweeting a video could be withdrawn if Kejriwal says that he made a mistake in retweeting the YouTube video.
The Court also remarked that determining whether Kejriwal's retweet constituted an endorsement of defamatory content would be a subject for evidence presentation during the trial in such instances.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that his client would readily acknowledge it as a mistake to retweet the video if he had been aware of the consequences.
Subsequently, the bench inquired with advocate Raghav Awasthi, representing the complainant, whether the case could be withdrawn if Kejriwal admitted the error in retweeting the video.
Also Read:How Indian Job Seekers Were Lured To Fight In Russia Through A YouTube Channel
Can retweets amount to defamation cases?
In September 2017, the Delhi High Court rejected the petition of AAP member Raghav Chadha, wherein he sought a ruling that retweeting should not be considered as defamation. According to the High Court bench's decision, a defamation lawsuit can be initiated against an individual for retweeting a defamatory tweet.
Chadha was implicated in the defamation case involving former Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, along with Kejriwal. The Delhi CM had taken to X (previously known as Twitter) to allege that Jaitley was involved in corrupt practices while he was at the helm of affairs at the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA).
In his plea, Chadha said that he was made to face a criminal defamation case just for retweeting Kejriwal’s tweets accusing Jaitley.
In a similar retweet case with a different outcome in 2020, Delhi Police filed charges against Mohammad Zubair from Alt News under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) following a complaint lodged by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR). The fact checker had retweeted photo of a minor girl whose face was blurred during an online altercation with her father.
According to the NCPCR's affidavit, Zubair's retweeting of a minor girl's picture was deemed to have triggered inappropriate and offensive comments. Moreover, it played a role in revealing her identity through her father, posing a severe threat to her safety and security.
The body had alleged, “Retweeting the picture on his Twitter platform exposed the girl to harassment on a big social media platform like Twitter wherein lewd and disgraceful comments were published by Twitter users.”
Zubair had approached the High Court seeking the dismissal of the FIR and action against Priyanka Kanoongo, the chairperson of NCPCR who filed the complaint. In the course of the hearing, the Delhi Police counsel informed the bench that Zubair's name is absent from the chargesheet. Therefore, they suggested that the matter could be concluded or settled.
Earlier, the police had stated that there was "no criminality in so far as Zubair is concerned," leading to his exclusion from the chargesheet.
Also Read:Account Withheld: How Farmers Are Navigating Elon Musk-Owned X's Censorship
