Vanshika Bhalla
On February 20, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed a defamation suit filed by LawSikho, an online legal education platform, against four individuals who criticized its courses on social media. The Court also imposed a ₹1 lakh cost on LawSikho for failing to disclose the full conversation thread.
A Single Bench led by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora emphasized that any defamation claim on social media must include the entire conversation thread. “A plaintiff alleging defamation on a social media platform must disclose the full conversation, including their own tweets, and approach the Court with clean hands. The plaint is rejected with costs of ₹1,00,000 payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks,” the Judge ordered.
The case stemmed from an exchange on platform X (formerly Twitter) between LawSikho and the defendants regarding the quality of legal education at National Law Universities (NLUs) and LawSikho’s courses. The Court ruled that tweets should be considered in context rather than in isolation.
“Tweets in a conversational thread should not be assessed in isolation when determining defamation. The nature of the medium is casual, fast-paced, and impressionistic,” the Judge noted.
The Court observed that LawSikho’s representative, Ramanuj Mukherjee, had initiated the debate with a provocative tweet. It ruled that the defendants’ tweets were responses to provocation and did not constitute defamation.
LawSikho sought a permanent injunction and damages, claiming the tweets harmed its business and stock value. However, the defendants argued that their comments were fair criticism. The Court sided with them, emphasizing that “a plaintiff initiating a provocative conversation on a casual medium like X should expect criticism.”
Distinguishing between disparaging and defamatory comments, the Court stated that while some tweets might be harsh, they do not necessarily amount to defamation. “The casual nature of social media invites anonymous posts that may seem disparaging but do not significantly impact the plaintiff’s reputation.”
The Court also compared online posts with traditional news media, stating that newspapers shape opinions, while social media is viewed as fleeting and conversational. “Unlike newspapers, social media posts are not seen as reliable, verified sources of information.”
Additionally, the Court noted that LawSikho had not first availed its statutory remedy under the IT Rules, 2021, by reporting the issue to the Grievance Officer before filing the suit. Thus, it dismissed the case, though LawSikho may still pursue its remedy under IT Rules.
Advocate Raghav Awasthi represented LawSikho, while Advocates Himanshu Bhushan and Shagun Srivastava appeared for the defendants. The ruling highlights the importance of understanding the conversational nature of social media and ensuring transparency in defamation claims.
Case Name: Addictive Learning Technology Limited & Anr v. Aditya Garg & Ors
Case Number: CS(OS) 570/2024
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora