Posting ‘kick his a**’, ‘200 gm brain’ online not defamation, rules Delhi High Court

The order added, “No evidence has been led to show that any client, colleague or member of the legal profession, formed an adverse opinion about the Plaintiff or that his professional standing suffered on account of these posts.”

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna heard a defamation case over a sarcastic Facebook post amid a matrimonial dispute

Marital dispute, Facebook memes and lawsuit

A Delhi lawyer approached the court seeking damages of Rs 1 lakh, alleging that his wife and her family members had defamed him through Facebook posts during their matrimonial dispute, and claimed that the posts targeted his personal and professional reputation, including remarks about him as a husband and father. He also alleged that his wife changed their daughter’s name without his consent.

The dispute arose after his wife left the matrimonial home with their daughter in 2016, and her brother made sarcastic remarks against him, including phrases like “If men can’t respect his wife and children…wife has freedom to kick his a** and move on…no one can write your destiny except god. So choose wisely, freedom or slavery?”, “p for pajama”, “200 gms of brain”, “if you’re a laywer” and “first of he is not a man who gives no respect 2 his wife..in today’s  world, a woman is very much aware of her rights, so kick these husbands who r so handicapped and can’t bear responsibility of his wife and children.”

He claimed that his reputation was harmed among his friends, relatives and professional circles, and that his estranged wife’s brother also posted their daughter’s photo referring to her with a new name. The estranged wife and her family denied the allegations and said that their daughter’s official name remained the same and she was being referred to by the new name affectionately.

 Advocate Bhanita Patowary for the husband argued that the Facebook posts amounted to cyber defamation as they had all the essential elements, namely, a false imputation, intention to harm, publication to third persons and consequent injury to reputation 

The wife and her family members argued that the posts were personal and largely reflected personal grievances, opinions or sarcasm, and that the man had failed to establish the essential ingredients of defamation. 

‘Sarcasm not defamation’

The court held that though some of the posts contain sarcastic, unpleasant and distasteful expressions, including “kick his a**”, “p for pajama”, “200 gms of brain”, “happy burning” and “pyar se vakil babu”, they predominantly reflect matrimonial discord, personal grievances and familial hostility. However, every sarcastic, offensive or unpleasant remark cannot, by any stretch, by itself, constitute defamation. 

The court found no merit in the appeal, rejected it and upheld the District Judge’s observation that, though the husband may have felt personally attacked and the posts may have caused hurt at a personal level, no concrete evidence was produced to show that his professional or public reputation had been diminished. It added that the posts essentially reflected familial discord and personal frustration and did not result in any proven injury to his standing as an Advocate or in society.