Introduction:

In PhysicsWallah Limited v. Nikhil Kumar Singh & Ors., the Delhi High Court, through Justice Jyoti Singh, passed an interim injunction directing the removal and takedown of allegedly abusive and derogatory social media posts made by a former employee against the online education platform PhysicsWallah, the Court was hearing a defamation suit filed by the company seeking damages of ₹2 crore, alleging that a series of YouTube videos and social media posts by the defendant were not only false and defamatory but also abusive, malicious, and intended to tarnish the goodwill and reputation of a fast-growing education brand, the plaintiff contended that the content went far beyond legitimate criticism and entered the realm of personal attacks, vulgar language, and unfounded allegations, thereby justifying immediate judicial intervention to prevent further reputational harm, the suit also named social media platforms as parties, seeking directions for takedown of the offending material, and the Court’s order came in the context of rising concerns about unchecked digital speech, especially when used by disgruntled former employees to air grievances in a manner that damages commercial reputation without substantiated proof.

Arguments:

Appearing for PhysicsWallah, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal argued that the case was not merely about defamation in the technical sense but was a clear instance of targeted abuse, harassment, and malicious branding of a legitimate business as a “scam,” he submitted that the defendant, being a former employee, had misused insider familiarity to create content that was sensational, abusive and calculated to mislead students and parents who rely heavily on online reviews and testimonials while choosing educational platforms, he pointed out that in the impugned videos and posts, the defendant used highly derogatory language, called the organisation a “tree of nepotism,” named employees individually, and made sweeping allegations without producing any verified evidence, which, according to him, crossed the permissible boundary of fair comment or whistleblowing, Sibal also contended that apart from defamation, the company was facing trademark dilution and infringement, since its brand name and logo were being repeatedly used in videos portraying it as fraudulent, thereby damaging consumer trust and market standing, he emphasized that criticism of corporate practices is legally permissible, but abuse, mockery, and unverified accusations presented as facts cannot be protected under free speech, particularly when they cause direct commercial harm, on the other hand, counsel for the defendant argued that the statements made by his client were based on information already circulating in the public domain and media reports critical of PhysicsWallah, and therefore, the company should also implead such third parties if it was genuinely concerned about reputational harm, he contended that the defendant was merely expressing his views and experiences and that restraining him would amount to silencing dissent and personal testimony, he also suggested that the matter involved public interest, as students deserve to know about internal practices of educational institutions, however, the Court was visibly unconvinced by this line of defence and questioned the manner and language used by the defendant, observing that even criticism must be expressed responsibly and within civil boundaries.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Jyoti Singh made strong oral observations indicating that abusive language cannot be justified under the garb of free speech, remarking pointedly that the defendant’s “dictionary perhaps knows only abuses,” and questioning how such language could be defended as fair criticism, the Court observed that while individuals are entitled to express opinions and even negative experiences, the law does not permit character assassination, vulgar personal attacks, or branding an organisation as fraudulent without judicial or factual determination, the Court stressed that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly where reputation and commercial goodwill are concerned, when the defendant’s counsel attempted to rely on third-party criticism, the Court clarified that the presence of other critical voices does not grant a licence to indulge in abusive and defamatory expression, Justice Singh further indicated that if a formal injunction were to be passed after detailed consideration, the Court would make strong adverse observations against the defendant, which would not be in his interest, and therefore suggested that he should voluntarily take down the content and undertake to refrain from posting such material in future, following this, the Court directed counsel for PhysicsWallah to submit a detailed list of impugned links, videos, and posts so that specific takedown directions could be issued against both the defendant and the concerned social media platforms, the Court also granted procedural timelines, directing the defendant to file written submissions within thirty days and reply to the interim injunction application within two weeks, thereby keeping the matter alive for further adjudication on merits, while ensuring that immediate reputational harm is mitigated through removal of harmful online content, the interim order thus reflects a cautious but firm judicial approach, balancing freedom of expression with protection against reputational abuse, especially in cases where digital platforms amplify defamatory material at a speed and scale far beyond traditional media, and underscores that former employees, despite grievances, cannot weaponize social media to conduct personal vendettas under the guise of whistleblowing without credible substantiation.