ARVIND KEJRIWAL   ( Petitioner )  Vs.  STATE & ANR  ( Respondents)

CRL.M.C. 6347/2019

(CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA)

Facts: Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Learned Trial Court and Sessions Court, the petitioner Sh. Arvind Kejriwal has approached this Court by way of present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court in in Ct.Case No.15/2019, and order dated 30.10.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 28/2019 by the learned Sessions Court.

Issue: Whether a retweet in itself, being not considered as original content by an original author, can form the basis of summoning an accused for offence under Section 499 of IPC?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner:

Sh. Manish Vashishth, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the orders passed by both the learned Trial Court and Sessions Court, argues that the learned Trial Court has summoned the petitioner in a mechanical manner and has presumed the alleged statements/re-tweet to be defamatory on the face of it, without even properly examining the same. It is stated that summoning is contrary to the settled principles of law since the Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and must satisfy itself that the ingredients of the alleged offence are made out, which was not done in this case. It is argued that a bare perusal of the retweet in question would show that the same does not constitute any offence of defamation as the offence of defamation, besides the requirement of mens rea, should consist of three essential ingredients i.e. (i) making or publishing any imputation concerning any person, (ii) such imputations must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations, and (iii) the said imputation must have been made with the intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the impugned orders failed to appreciate that the alleged re-tweet was not done with intent to harm respondent no. 2, nor was it likely to harm him in any manner.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for Respondents:

Sh. Raghav Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, who seeks to sustain the impugned orders, argues that the allegations made against the respondent no. 2 are false, malicious and defamatory and the same have lowered his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of the society. It is contended that without there being any proof in support of allegations levelled against the respondent no. 2, the petitioner herein, who is the Chief Minister of Delhi, has retweeted the video, shared by Sh. Dhruv Rathee on his YouTube channel, without verifying its authenticity and due to the large following of the petitioner herein, the video had reached a large number of people not only in India, but internationally also. On these grounds, it is argued that the impugned orders suffer from no infirmity and the learned Trial Court has rightly summoned the petitioner herein in the present case since a prima facie case of defamation is made out against the petitioner and the issues which the petitioner has raised by way of this petition are all triable in nature. It is further submitted on behalf of respondent no. 2 that the earlier complaint filed by respondent no. 2 before the Saket Courts, Delhi was withdrawn qua the present petitioner only since the said Court was not competent to try any matter in relation to the petitioner herein, who is an MLA and Chief Minister of Delhi, and therefore, the respondent no. 2 had no option but to withdraw the complaint from the previous Court with liberty to file a fresh complaint against the petitioner in the court which is competent to try cases pertaining to MPs/MLAs.

Held: The court dismissed the present petition and held that, “At times, it is difficult to erase the reputational injury from public memory, as the tweets may be deleted but perceptions are difficult to be deleted from the minds of the community. This Court, thus, for the purpose of adjudicating the present case, holds that retweeting a content, which is allegedly defamatory, on the Twitter account and projecting it to be as if his own views, will prima facie attract the liability under Section 499 of IPC, for the purpose of issuance of summons. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Sessions Court. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove qua the present complaint case are solely for the purpose of deciding the instant petition challenging the summoning orders, and the same shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case, which will be adjudicated upon during the course of trial. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.”