Delhi High Court orders ‘X’ to remove ‘communal’ posts against lawyer couple

Court flags threats, inflammatory content

• After examining the material on record, the Delhi High Court found the content to be deeply problematic.
• The court said that a substantial amount of content includes statements that can be construed as communally inflammatory.
• It said that references have been made to the personal lives of the plaintiffs in the context of their political inclinations, which indicates a brewing campaign by those who have opposing political inclinations.
• The Delhi High Court said the tweets are “communally provocative, profane and vulgar” and affects the dignity and personal lives of the plaintiffs.
• The content of the tweets are extremely derogatory, and no human being with dignity and self-respect can live peacefully and with head held high if such scandalous, vulgar posts are circulated against them amongst the public at large, it added.
• The Delhi High Court further noted that several posts contained references to the plaintiffs’ personal lives and political inclinations, suggesting a coordinated campaign driven by the ideological opposition.
• Importantly, the court flagged that some comments included threats of physical and sexual violence, raising serious concerns about the safety of the plaintiffs.
• In matters of granting injunction against the publication of any article where the right of freedom of speech is impeached, the courts must take into account the nature of the publication and its impact on the lives of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court said.

Suit against anonymous handles, platform

• The plaintiffs, a married couple, both experienced legal professionals, approached the court seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction, along with damages, against X Corp (formerly Twitter) and unidentified users operating under anonymous handles.
• The court noted that while the husband is an advocate practicing before the Supreme Court of India for nearly two decades, his wife is also an advocate with significant experience in public policy, including service with the government of the United Kingdom.
• According to the plea, the defendants were engaged in a “continuous, deliberate, escalating and coordinated pattern” of defamatory and communally provocative posts, which allegedly harmed their professional standing and exposed them to harassment and abuse.

• The couple also sought directions to the platform to disclose the identities of the anonymous users and prevent further dissemination of such content.
• The plea stated that anonymous accounts have been publishing, reposting and amplifying “unlawful content” against the plaintiffs on social media platforms in deliberate, escalating and coordinated patterns of defamatory, malicious, false and communally inflammatory posts.
• According to the plaintiffs, this malicious and per se defamatory content has caused and continues to cause grave and irreparable harm to her reputation, dignity and professional standing and exposing her to sustained public hostility, harassment and targeted abuse.

Balancing free speech, reputation

• The Delhi High Court underscored the need to strike a balance between freedom of speech and the right to reputation, reiterating that reputation is an intrinsic part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, and that continued circulation of such content would cause irreparable harm that could not be compensated monetarily.

Directions issued by court

• The anonymous defendants were ordered to remove the impugned posts within three days.
• X Corp was directed to take down and prevent further dissemination of the content.
• All parties, including the general public, were restrained from reposting or sharing similar material.
• Additionally, the court ordered preservation of relevant data such as account details and metadata to aid further proceedings.

Next hearing in July

• Summons have been issued to the defendants, who have been granted 30 days to file their written statements.
• The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 17, with the interim protection continuing till then.