38.6c New Delhi, India, Friday, October 31, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Delhi High Court dismisses defamation suit by LawSikho over social media criticism, imposes ₹1 Lakh cost [Read Judgment]

By Saket Sourav      27 February, 2025 02:17 PM      0 Comments
Delhi High Court dismisses defamation suit by LawSikho over social media criticism imposes 1 Lakh cost

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a defamation suit filed by Addictive Learning Technology Limited and another plaintiff against multiple defendants over allegedly defamatory tweets on social media platform X (formerly Twitter). The court ruled that the suit failed to disclose a valid cause of action and lacked legal merit.

Delhi High Court Ruling on Social Media Defamation: Key Takeaways

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made crucial observations regarding online speech and defamation laws, emphasizing that mere disagreement or criticism on social media does not constitute defamation.

The case was filed against Aditya Garg and others over tweets that the plaintiffs claimed defamed them and harmed their business reputation. However, the court observed: “Platforms like X are conversational in nature, where users engage in debates, counterarguments, and expressions of personal opinion. A holistic reading of the exchange suggests that the impugned tweets do not amount to defamation.”

LawSikho Defamation Case Dismissed: What the Judgment Means for Online Speech

Addressing whether the tweets harmed the plaintiffs, the court noted: “The plaintiffs themselves initiated the discussion and voluntarily engaged in an online debate. They cannot later claim defamation merely because responses were critical.”

The court also made significant observations regarding the nature of the alleged defamatory tweets, stating: “The court notes that utterances in the nature of tweets in a conversational thread on platform X are not to be assessed in isolation for the purposes of determining a defamation claim. The nature of the medium is casual and fast-paced, conversational in character, and an elaborate analysis of a 140-character tweet (or more) may be disproportionate. Importantly, the absorption by the reader and the reaction to the post are impressionistic and fleeting.”

Additionally, the court highlighted that the plaintiffs had an alternative remedy under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which they did not utilize. The court remarked: “For an aggrieved plaintiff or claimant to approach the court without having triggered or exhausted the said time-bound remedy is a material factor to be considered.”

The court further noted that social media users who voluntarily participate in discussions should be prepared for responses that may be critical. Mere annoyance or disagreement does not constitute defamation.

In a specific directive, the court ruled: “The suit is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code as it fails to disclose any cause of action. The plaintiffs are directed to pay ₹1,00,000 in costs to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.”

The court also observed that a person cannot be penalized for holding an opinion and that a cause of action for the aggrieved would only arise if such an opinion is translated into action—i.e., if it results in injury, harm, or loss to the aggrieved party. It further held that a mere allegation by the plaintiff that the defendant’s statement amounts to an innuendo is not sufficient to prove defamation.

Appearances:
• Advocate Raghav Awasthi appeared for the plaintiffs.
• Advocates Himanshu Bhushan and Shagun Srivastava appeared for defendant no. 2.

Case Title: Addictive Learning Technology Limited & Anr. v. Aditya Garg & Ors.

[Read Judgment]



Share this article:

About:

Saket is a final-year law student at The National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. He has...Read more

Follow:
Linkedin


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

'Without documentary proof, Waqf Board can't lay claim over any property' 'Without documentary proof, Waqf Board can't lay claim over any property'

In 2012, the Anjuman Committee addressed a letter to the Chairman of the Waqf Board stating there is a wall and Chabutrah (platform) on a 'Tiranga Ki Qalandari Masjid where in olden times laborers used to offer prayers.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Tribunal's Award Against NHAI in Highway Project Delay Case [Read Judgment] Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Tribunal's Award Against NHAI in Highway Project Delay Case [Read Judgment]

The Delhi High Court sets aside an Arbitral Tribunal's award favoring IRB Pathankot Amritsar Toll Road Ltd over a delay in a highway project. The court finds that the tribunal did not address the essential dispute of whether the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) was in material default, rendering the award invalid.

Delhi Court Rejects Stay Request in Defamation Case Against Rajasthan CM Ashok Gehlot [Read Order] Delhi Court Rejects Stay Request in Defamation Case Against Rajasthan CM Ashok Gehlot [Read Order]

A Delhi court refuses to stay the defamation case filed by Union Cabinet minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat against Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot. The court declined to stay the summons and sets a hearing date for August 19.

Delhi High Court to Commence Daily Hearings on August 28 for Appeals Against Acquittals in 2G Case Delhi High Court to Commence Daily Hearings on August 28 for Appeals Against Acquittals in 2G Case

Delhi High Court is set to begin day-to-day hearings from August 28 for appeals by CBI and ED against acquittals in the 2G spectrum allocation case, expressing displeasure over adjournment requests. The case involves former telecom minister A Raja and business entities. Learn about the proceedings and details of the case.

TRENDING NEWS

sc-hints-at-pan-india-guidelines-on-timeline-to-frame-charges
Trending Judiciary
SC hints at pan-India guidelines on timeline to frame charges

SC mulls pan-India guidelines to curb delays in framing charges; notes cases where charges aren’t framed even after years despite BNSS mandate of 60 days.

30 October, 2025 12:22 PM
limitation-for-continuous-breach-runs-only-till-contract-expiry-kerala-hc-clarifies
Trending Judiciary
Limitation for Continuous Breach Runs Only Till Contract Expiry: Kerala High Court Clarifies [Read Judgment]

Kerala HC clarifies that for continuous breach of contract, limitation under Article 55 starts when breach ceases; once contract ends, breach cannot continue.

30 October, 2025 01:37 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-quashes-uapa-arrests-holds-remand-courts-explanation-cannot-replace-written-grounds-of-arrest
Trending Judiciary
SC Quashes UAPA Arrests, Holds Remand Court’s Explanation Cannot Replace Written Grounds Of Arrest [Read Order]

Supreme Court quashes UAPA arrests, ruling that remand court’s explanation cannot substitute the mandatory written grounds of arrest.

25 October, 2025 11:10 AM
ngt-orders-probe-into-illegal-tree-felling-in-delhis-civil-lines-directs-action-within-three-months
Trending Environment
NGT Orders Probe into Illegal Tree Felling in Delhi’s Civil Lines, Directs Action Within Three Months [Read Order]

NGT directs Tree Officer to probe illegal tree felling in Delhi’s Civil Lines and take action under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994.

25 October, 2025 11:28 AM
gauhati-hc-quashes-fir-against-cnn-news18-anchor-akansha-swarup-over-kamakhya-temple-remarks
Trending CelebStreet
Gauhati HC Quashes FIR Against CNN-News18 Anchor Akansha Swarup Over Kamakhya Temple Remarks [Read Order]

Gauhati HC quashes FIR against CNN-News18 anchor Akansha Swarup, ruling her Kamakhya Temple remarks were careless but lacked malicious intent.

25 October, 2025 11:43 AM
delhi-hc-upholds-divorce-on-cruelty-grounds-denies-alimony-to-financially-independent-wife
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Upholds Divorce On Cruelty Grounds, Denies Alimony To Financially Independent Wife [Read Judgment]

Delhi HC upholds divorce on cruelty grounds, denies alimony to IRTS officer wife, ruling that alimony is for need-based justice, not enrichment.

25 October, 2025 12:10 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email