38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, January 12, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Supporting defamatory WhatsApp posts doesn’t constitute involvement in offence of defamation: MP HC [Read Order]

By Saket Sourav      16 September, 2024 12:07 PM      0 Comments
Supporting defamatory WhatsApp posts doesnt constitute involvement in offence of defamation MP HC

Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the scope of defamation in WhatsApp group conversations, clarifying that merely agreeing with or supporting a potentially defamatory post does not necessarily constitute involvement in the offence of defamation.

Justice Subodh Abhyankar heard a petition filed by retired Air Marshal Harish Masand, challenging lower court orders that refused to take cognizance of his complaint against certain housing society members whom he had accused of defamation.

The court noted that the case originated from a dispute in a housing society’s WhatsApp group, where the petitioner alleged defamatory posts were made against him.

Examining the WhatsApp chats, Justice Abhyankar observed, “It is found that in the entire text of the WhatsApp group, only two persons, namely Sandeep Gupta and Lt. Col. Jagdish Pahuja, have expressed their views in detail, whereas the other persons have made only passing remarks, agreeing with Sandeep Gupta and Lt. Col. Jagdish Pahuja.”

The court held that while expressing agreement with a post through a one-liner may amount to agreeing with the expression, the context and purpose of the WhatsApp group must be considered. Justice Abhyankar stated, “This Court is also required to see the conversation in the WhatsApp group in its entirety, and has to see the context in which it is made, and also the purpose for which the WhatsApp group was formed.”

Emphasizing the importance of intent, the court observed, “These comments appear to have been made without any premeditation, and on the spur of the moment only. They appear to have been made without any intention of defaming the petitioner, and in such circumstances, they cannot be held liable for the long posts which are made by only two members of the said group.”

In conclusion, the court found no illegality in the lower courts’ decisions to take cognizance only against the two accused persons who had made detailed posts, while not proceeding against others who had merely agreed or made brief comments.

[Read Order]



Share this article:

About:

Saket is a law graduate from The National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. He has a keen ...Read more

Follow:
Linkedin


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered filing of complaint against petitioner for submitting fabricated documents Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered filing of complaint against petitioner for submitting fabricated documents

The Court pointed out one medical document in particular, wherein there was mentioning of labour pains and contradicted that since petitioner is a male, it makes no sense. In view of the above, the Court opined that the Petitioner unabashedly filed fake documents with utter disdain and disregard for the Court.

Supreme Court allows Jr. Judge appointment to woman denied the same due to dog bite case Supreme Court allows Jr. Judge appointment to woman denied the same due to dog bite case

The Supreme Court of India overturns Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision, ordering the appointment of a woman who was previously denied the position of Civil Judge (Junior Division) due to a past minor offence related to a dog bite case. The Court emphasizes fairness and justice in its landmark ruling.

Fashionable to demolish homes without following natural justice, Madhya Pradesh HC on bulldozer action in Ujjain Fashionable to demolish homes without following natural justice, Madhya Pradesh HC on bulldozer action in Ujjain

Madhya Pradesh High Court says it has become fashionable to demolish any house without complying with natural justice.

Supporting defamatory WhatsApp posts doesn’t constitute involvement in offence of defamation: MP HC [Read Order] Supporting defamatory WhatsApp posts doesn’t constitute involvement in offence of defamation: MP HC [Read Order]

The MP High Court ruled that merely agreeing with or supporting defamatory WhatsApp posts doesn't necessarily involve liability for defamation.

TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

wrong-bail-orders-alone-without-evidence-of-corruption-cannot-justify-removal-of-judicial-officer-sc
Trending Judiciary
Wrong Bail Orders Alone, Without Evidence of Corruption, Cannot Justify Removal of Judicial Officer: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that wrong bail orders alone cannot justify removal of a judicial officer without proof of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous considerations.

06 January, 2026 07:43 PM
divorced-muslim-woman-can-seek-maintenance-under-crpc-even-after-receiving-amount-under-muslim-women-protection-act-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Under CrPC Even After Receiving Amount Under Muslim Women Protection Act: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court holds that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even after receiving amounts under the 1986 Act.

06 January, 2026 08:19 PM
delhi-hc-full-bench-settles-bsf-seniority-dispute-rule-of-continuous-regular-appointment-prevails
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Full Bench Settles BSF Seniority Dispute; Rule of ‘Continuous Regular Appointment’ Prevails [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court Full Bench rules BSF seniority is based on date of continuous regular appointment, rejecting claims for antedated seniority due to delayed joining.

06 January, 2026 08:45 PM
borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email