Public figure bears moral responsibility to verify facts: Delhi HC slams Richa Chadha

Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that Chadha’s endorsement and amplification of unverified allegations transcended mere free expression and acted as a catalyst for public shaming

The Delhi high court said that a public figure bears a legal and moral responsibility to verify the veracity of facts before leveraging their platforms to amplify grave accusations while criticising actor Richa Chadha for publicly “shaming” and amplifying unverified claims against a man accused of sexual misconduct by a woman on a flight.

The incident occurred on March 11, when the woman accused the man of inappropriate physical conduct. (File photo)

“A public figure, such as defendant no. 7 (Richa Chadha), bears a legal and moral responsibility to verify the veracity of facts before leveraging her platform to amplify grave accusations. The Court is prima facie of the view that endorsement of unverified allegations has inflicted immediate, exponential, and incalculable harm on the plaintiff’s reputation. The endorsement and amplification of an unverified allegation, accompanied by the instigatory text “Make him famous”, transcends mere free expression and acts as a catalyst for public shaming and digital vigilantism,” a bench of justice Vikas Mahajan said in his March 20 order, released on Tuesday.

The court observed the same, while hearing a defamation suit filed by the man against Chadha, the woman and certain media platforms seeking removal of allegedly defamatory content published against him following the incident.

The incident occurred on March 11, when the woman, a freelance journalist by profession, accused the man of inappropriate physical conduct during a flight while he was seated next to her. Soon after landing, she shared the allegation on X, disclosing his name, photograph, and professional details. The post quickly gained traction and was widely reported by several media outlets. Chadha subsequently reposted the allegations with the remark, “Make him famous.”

In his suit, argued by senior advocate Shyel Trehan and advocate Rohan Poddar, the man contended that there was a reasonable apprehension of prior communication, coordination, or influence between the woman and Richa Chadha.

He pointed out that Chadha reposted the woman’s tweet made at 9:39am around 11:50pm, whereas the FIR against him was registered later at 12:27pm.

Trehan added that posts went far beyond the contents of the FIR, alleging that they effectively acted as a mouthpiece for the woman’s publication and served to sensationalise the allegations rather than merely report them.

Chadha’s lawyer Madhav Khurana submitted that his client had already deleted the post in question and contended that she was impleaded in the suit solely to attract attention and generate publicity around the case.

The woman’s lawyer Vanya Chhabra opposed the suit asserting that the man was seeking a pre-emptive gag order and thus restraining her from narrating her own first-person experience of sexual misconduct.

She added that granting injunction, when an FIR has been registered, would tantamount to a premature gag order and a restraint on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

In its 18-page order, the court directed the woman and other media platforms to take down the content and further restrained them from posting similar content in future. With respect to Chadha, the court took note of her counsel’s submission that the content had been taken down and observed that it expects her to refrain from precipitating or aggravating such issues in the future.

With regard to the woman, the court observed that her decision to post the allegations before the registration of an FIR amounted to a hasty public disclosure, indicating an attempt to sensationalise the issue and subject the man to a trial by public opinion rather than pursuing bona fide legal remedies.

“The overhasty public disclosure, prima facie, suggests an attempt to sensationalize the issue and subject the plaintiff to a trial by public opinion, rather than a bona fide pursuit of legal redress. While defendant no. 1 has an unhindered right to report a grievance, but using social media to circulate allegations of inappropriate touching and revealing the identity of the plaintiff along with his photograph before a formal investigation even commences, in a prima facie view of this Court, is a severe transgression of the plaintiff’s fundamental right to live with dignity and have fair trial,” the court said.