Retweet case: Supreme Court stays defamation trial against Kejriwal

Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal told the court “he made a mistake” by reposting a video circulated by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee related to the BJP’s IT cell

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the criminal defamation proceedings at a trial court against Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal temporarily in connection with a case against him regarding a post on X (formerly Twitter) in 2018.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, said: “It is just a re-tweet with no addition. This cannot be a ground to target someone for political reasons. I do not mind saying it is a mistake if this is the consequence.” (Sanchit Khanna/HT Photo)

The court adjourned the hearing till March 11. Kejriwal told the top court that “he made a mistake” by reposting an allegedly defamatory video circulated by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee related to the IT cell of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

The bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said, “We will re-list the matter on March 11. Meanwhile, the matter will not be taken up by the trial court. He (Kejriwal) need not appear in the court.”

On Monday, the court was hearing a petition filed by Kejriwal against a February 5 order of the Delhi high court refusing to quash the summons issued by a city court in 2019 on a complaint by one Vikas Sankrityayan. The high court asked the CM to face trial for re-tweeting the video in May 2018 and reminded him that as a public figure, his “posts have far-reaching ramifications”.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, said: “It is just a re-tweet with no addition. This cannot be a ground to target someone for political reasons. I do not mind saying it is a mistake if this is the consequence.”

The complainant was represented in court by advocate Raghav Awasthi. The court told Awasthi, “You have heard what has been stated. He (the petitioner) accepts it is a mistake and he wants closure. You can take instructions.”

Singhvi alleged that ahead of the elections, the trial has picked pace as the complainant is prosecuting the matter with haste. “In the context of elections, they are hot-footing the trial. The court may issue notice on this appeal as the trial court is proceeding with the matter.”

The petition filed by Kejriwal further said that the complainant has not established how the “re-tweet” caused any legal injury as required under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with defamation. “The only injury sought to be portrayed is that out of 1.5 crore followers of respondent (Vikas Sankrityayan) on Facebook, one follower, i.e., complainant’s witness, has unfollowed him,” said the petition filed through advocate Vivek Jain.

Awasthi denied the charge that his client was pursuing the matter for any political purpose and was open to requesting the trial court for a joint request to adjourn the matter till the top court decides on the appeal.

The bench was also not willing to issue notice on the petition. It said: “There is a technical issue whether the re-tweet is an endorsement that will have its own consequences or that you found something on the internet and you decided to inform about it.”

The court observed, “For a layman, it is a simple matter. But in the background of this case, will it not be a matter of leading evidence to show whether it (the post) falls under the first or the second category... This has to be determined.”

Singhvi said that the high court has placed the tweet in the first category. He further indicated that the complainant is also guilty of suppressing the truth. He pointed out that first a complaint was filed in July 2018 against the video author which did not mention Kejriwal. This complaint was withdrawn in October 2018 and four months later, in February 2019, the present complaint was filed.

The Delhi high court, while refusing to stay the summons, reminded Kejriwal that when a public figure makes a defamatory post on social media, the ramifications can be far serious. It said the legal injury under Section 499 IPC will get attracted as in the digital age, the implications of defamation are heightened as the boundaries of publication become expanded having a potential of widespread dissemination.

Kejriwal in his appeal told the top court, “The present criminal proceeding is being pursued to harass the petitioner with an oblique political motive and even though no injury is caused to respondent due to petitioner’s alleged ‘retweet’.”

He further pointed out that the original post was deleted by the author and thus the defamation proceedings based on the repost could not be sustained.