Delhi High Court held the importance of due diligence and fact-checking on social media, finding a user liable for defamation for making accusations against a former ambassador without adequate verification.

In a judgment issued on July 1, 2024, the Delhi High Court ruled that social media users must verify their claims before making allegations. The case involved Defendant Saket Gokhale, who tweeted that Plaintiff Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri, a former Indian ambassador, and her husband, a government minister, acquired an apartment in Geneva through illicit means.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani found that Gokhale's reliance on publicly available financial documents did not constitute “reasonable verification” and that his tweets were false and malicious. The Court held that Gokhale should have contacted Puri, her husband, or relevant authorities before making public accusations.

The Court emphasized the lasting impact of false financial impropriety accusations, particularly against public figures, and noted that such allegations can severely damage reputations. Gokhale's tweets were deemed "per-se defamatory" and harmful to Puri's reputation.

The Court observed the amplifying effect of social media, comparing its potential harm to a nuclear reaction. Gokhale, a public interest activist with a large Twitter following, had incited negative comments about Puri. The plaintiff's husband, Mr. Hardeep Singh Puri, a 1974 batch IFS Officer, served in Ambassador-level posts for over 12 years and held key positions with the UN. Since September 2017, he has been a Minister in the Central Government.

While financial matters of public officials are subject to scrutiny, the Court stressed the need for balanced scrutiny with respect to privacy rights. It highlighted the importance of responsible journalism and public discourse, noting that unfounded allegations can erode trust in public institutions.

The Court ordered Gokhale to apologize on Twitter and in the Times of India, prohibited him from publishing further content about the apartment purchase, and imposed ₹50 lakh (approximately USD 60,000) in damages to Puri.

Key Observations by the Court: Impact of Tweets: The tweets likely influenced opinions within the official ecosystem where Puri and her husband operate.
Reach and Influence: Gokhale's large following and the nature of social media likely caused widespread dissemination of the false information.

Duty of Responsible Use: Gokhale should have sought clarification before making public accusations.

The Court addressed these issues:

Whether the tweets defamed the plaintiff.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an apology. Whether the plaintiff should be protected from further tweets on the matter. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, and if so, the amount.

Justice Bhambhani emphasized that while public scrutiny of officials is necessary, it must be conducted responsibly, balancing transparency with respect for privacy. The ruling reinforces the importance of verified information before making public accusations.

Relief:
The court believes that no monetary award can fully compensate for reputational damage but orders defendant No.1 to pay the plaintiff Rs. 50 lakhs within eight weeks.

BETWEEN: Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri V. Saket Gokhale & Anr
CORAM: JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
DOJ: 1ST July, 2024
CASE DETAILS: CS(OS) 300/2021 & I.A. 1990/2022