Delhi High Court Fines LawSikho ₹1 Lakh for Filing Defamation Case Over Critical Tweets
Manshi Raj,
Usha Martin University, Ranchi
This article pertains to the recent order of the Delhi High Court awarding a fine of ₹1 lakh against LawSikho for initiating a defamation suit based upon some critical tweets. The article outlines the key aspects of the case, the court’s reasoning behind the penalty and the wider implications of such verdicts on free speech and defamation laws in the country. This emphasises the difficulties that organisations and individuals face while dealing with legal actions when it comes to criticism expressed over the internet.
New Delhi, February 26, 2025 – The Delhi High Court has quashed the defamation suit filed by legal education platform LawSikho against four individuals who expressed criticism about the quality of its related legal courses across social media platforms. Along with dismissing the case, the court also imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on LawSikho for failing to disclose the entire conversation thread in its complaint.
The present controversy primarily revolves around the individuals Aditya Garg, Ashish Goel, and a few other lawyers who are currently being sued by a company called LawSikho (which is run under the banner of Addictive Learning Technology Limited) because of their remarks on the platform 'X' (formerly Twitter). The tweets, it claims, can impact the company’s business, market standing, and it can affect the share value on the National Stock Exchange. “Defendants contend their statements are protected as constitutive expressions of opinion and thus, not defamatory.” Things came to a boil when Ramanuj Mukherjee, a face of LawSikho, tweeted about legal education at law firms and National Law Universities (NLUs). Many users subsequently questioned the competence of LawSikho's courses in response to the same. The company then filed a defamation lawsuit, seeking a permanent injunction against the tweets and damages.
Court Observation : LawSikho was deemed not to have approached the court with "clean hands," according to Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora. The accounting firm did not provide a full thread of the conversation, including the original tweets that drew replies from others. Specifically, the court emphasized that if someone brings a defamation case involving comments made on social media, all tweets should be shown rather than just selected ones.
In its decision, the court noted that where social media conversations are an alleged source of defamation, especially where in-line conversations take the form of conversation threads, it is the duty of the plaintiff to present all of the conversations causing alleged defamation before the court. That means they must present their own tweets and comments to ensure complete transparency.
The judge observed that it is not acceptable in legal proceedings to present only what is relevant to the prosecution and withhold what would be clear to the contrary. Also noting the nature of social media, the court deemed "X" (formerly Twitter) to be an informal platform that operates at a fast pace, where users usually engage in short, spontaneous exchanges. Against that backdrop, the judge concluded that defamation cannot be evaluated on a tweet-by-tweet basis. As tweets are normally excerpted and part of ongoing discussion, viewing tweets in isolation does not present a fair view of the dialogue. The court ruled social media is a medium of fast communication and has much lesser power over public opinion than traditional news media.
The court observed that the tweets in question were not defamatory as they were only responses to comments made by LawSikho’s representative, Ramanuj Mukherjee. It reinforced that people can speak their minds unless what they are saying is causing tangible harm. This underscores a principle that prohibits criticism matters unless tangible damage cannot be observed. The ruling said that it would be guided by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 that post a grievance redressal mechanism for online content. The court observed that LawSikho did not take this route before filing the defamation suit and thus held that its dismissal was well-founded. The court imposed the penalty of directing LawSikho to pay ₹1 lakh to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee in four weeks. However, it clarified that the company could still seek legal remedies under the IT rules.
In briefly, this decision suggests that Lawshikho must provide some evidence of harm in order to establish defamation of its reputation through criticism on social media. It also underscores the importance of transparency in bringing such cases. In any event, LawSikho's attempt to quash criticism has, in addition to backfiring, become a costly affair for them.
References
● https://inforrm.org/2022/12/29/top-10-defamation-cases-2022-a-selection-suneet-sharma/