Public figure must verify facts before amplifying: HC to Richa Chadha

The Delhi High Court criticized Richa Chadha for amplifying unverified sexual misconduct claims, emphasizing the responsibility of public figures to verify facts.

A public figure bears a legal and moral responsibility to verify the veracity of facts before leveraging their platforms to amplify grave accusations, the Delhi High Court held, while criticising actor Richa Chadha for publicly “shaming” and amplifying unverified claims against a man accused of sexual misconduct by a woman on a Delhi–Mumbai flight.

The court criticised actor Richa Chadha for publicly “shaming” and amplifying unverified claims against a man accused of sexual misconduct by a woman on a Delhi–Mumbai flight. (HT Archive)

“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...[it] transcends mere free expression and acts as a catalyst for public shaming and digital vigilantism,” a bench of justice Vikas Mahajan said in a March 20 order, released on Tuesday.

The court also criticised media reporting in the matter. “The narrative set by the media houses and digital platforms has clearly breached the contours of the FIR. The publications do not merely report the allegations in the FIR; they prematurely adjudicate the matter. By suggesting the plaintiff to be the ‘culprit’ and categorically labelling him a ‘molester’, the defendants have effectively usurped the adjudicatory function of the competent courts,” it said.

The court was hearing a defamation suit filed by the man against Chadha, the woman, and certain media platforms, seeking the 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 on X with the caption, “Make him famous.”

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.

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 Chadha.

He pointed out that Chadha reposted the woman’s tweet made at 9:39 am around 11:50 pm, whereas the FIR against him was registered later at 12:27 pm. Trehan added that posts went far beyond the contents of the FIR, alleging that they effectively acted as a mouthpiece for the woman’s publicationand 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 order, the court observed that the woman’s 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.

“While defendant no. 1 (the woman) 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.

Regarding the content posted by media outlets, the court further said, “The narrative set by the media houses and digital platforms... grossly violate the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and create an unwarranted parallel investigation that has the potential of severely prejudicing the ongoing investigation in the aforesaid FIR.”