‘Ready to say retweeting YouTube video was a mistake’: CM Kejriwal to SC in defamation case

Appearing for the Delhi CM, Senior Advocate A M Singhvi pointed out that the original complaint was withdrawn and then filed once again after nine months by suppressing the facts about the withdrawal. “It’s a case of defamation just for retweeting on X. This complaint is followed immediately by pre-summoning evidence being recorded. After this, the complaint is withdrawn. When it is refiled, nine months after the incident, it was suppressed that the original complaint was withdrawn,” he submitted.

Justice Khanna said that two views are possible about retweeting. “When it comes to retweets, there may be two ways to look at it: One is an endorsement. If it is an endorsement, then it may have its own consequences. The other way to look at it is, you found something on the internet or the website, and you are just sharing that information,” the judge observed.

Singhvi said, “That’s the precise point to be decided”. He added that the “High Court, unfortunately, has taken the first view of retweets as endorsements.”

Justice Khanna wondered if it would not be a matter of evidence.

While stating that he would be able to satisfy the court about the legal position, Singhvi added, “There’s no problem in admitting that this was a mistake if he had known that these would be the consequences.”

The bench then asked Advocate Raghav Awasthi, appearing for the complainant, whether he would be amenable to closing the case in view of the submission that Kejriwal was willing to admit that retweeting it was a mistake.

Awasthi sought time to seek instructions, following which the bench adjourned the hearing.

Commenting on the case, the HC had said, “When a public figure tweets a defamatory post, the ramifications extend far beyond a mere whisper in someone’s ears.”

“The background of the petitioner, being a Chief Minister, necessitates an acknowledgment of the inherent sense of responsibility that comes with such a significant political role. As a leader with political standing and maturity, the petitioner is presumed to be aware of the potential impact of his actions, including retweets on the public perception,” it added.

The High Court further said that though “every retweet of defamatory imputation would ordinarily amount to ‘publication’ under IPC Section 499”, it is ultimately for the aggrieved person to decide “which retweet caused more harm to his reputation, lowered his moral or intellectual character or credibility among the members of society”. The court said, “Whether the retweet had the potential to defame the complainant is to be decided by the trial court, based on material before it.”