Introduction:

On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court heard an appeal by X Corp. (formerly Twitter) challenging a single judge’s order that directed the removal of tweets made by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh, and Pawan Khera. The tweets alleged that senior journalist Rajat Sharma used abusive language on his show during the 2024 Lok Sabha election result day. The single judge had granted an interim injunction in Sharma’s defamation suit against the Congress leaders, and X Corp. sought to overturn this order. Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao appeared for X Corp., contending that the injunction was issued ex parte and that X Corp. was unfairly burdened by the order.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Petitioner’s Arguments: Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, representing X Corp., argued that the single judge’s ex parte order was issued without giving X Corp. a chance to be heard. Rao asserted that X Corp. should not be held responsible for the content of the tweets and that the court’s order was issued without proper notice to the platform. Rao emphasized that X Corp. was merely an intermediary and had no involvement in the content of the tweets. He argued that the onus placed on X Corp. to comply with the injunction was unfair and not consistent with legal standards for intermediaries under Indian law.

Rao also pointed out that X Corp. had no “skin in the game” and was merely complying with the court’s orders as a neutral platform. He contended that the single judge’s decision was flawed in imposing a final injunction before a full hearing could take place and that this was contrary to the principles of fair hearing and due process.

Respondent’s Arguments: Rajat Sharma’s legal team, represented by Advocate S.S. Momi and Additional Solicitor General Mr. Rajesh Gaur, argued that the single judge’s order was justified and in line with legal precedents concerning the role of intermediaries in content regulation. They emphasized that the ex parte order was issued to address urgent concerns about reputational harm due to the allegedly defamatory tweets.

Sharma’s team maintained that the tweets made by Congress leaders contained defamatory content that unjustly harmed Sharma’s reputation. They argued that the court’s directive for X Corp. to remove the tweets was a reasonable and necessary step to prevent further reputational damage. They also contended that X Corp. was legally obligated to comply with the court’s orders regarding the removal of such content, as established by Supreme Court precedents.

Court’s Judgment:

The Delhi High Court, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, addressed several key issues during the appeal. The Court began by examining the validity of the single judge’s ex parte order, noting that such orders are generally issued to provide immediate relief but are not meant to replace a full hearing process. The bench highlighted that X Corp.’s grievance about not being notified before the injunction was issued had merit, but also emphasized the role of intermediaries in ensuring that judicial orders are followed.

Acting Chief Justice Manmohan remarked that, as an intermediary, X Corp. had a duty to comply with judicial directives concerning the removal of content. He noted that X Corp. could not refuse to follow the court’s order simply because it was issued ex parte. The Court affirmed that intermediaries are required to act on judicial orders and that this requirement was consistent with both national and international standards for content regulation.

Justice Gedela underscored that the primary concern in this case was the protection of individual reputations rather than X Corp.’s interests. He explained that the court’s role in such cases is to balance the rights of individuals with the obligations of intermediaries, ensuring that judicial decisions are implemented effectively.

The Court ruled that the single judge’s order was indeed an ad interim measure and that it was appropriate for the injunction application to be revisited for a more comprehensive hearing. The Court clarified that the interim order directed X Corp. to remove the tweets within seven days, as stipulated in the Intermediary Guidelines, but that this order was subject to further review.

The Court scheduled a hearing for July 11, 2024, to address the merits of the injunction application and to ensure that both parties had the opportunity to present their full arguments. The Court’s decision to review the single judge’s order indicated a willingness to provide a thorough examination of the legal issues involved.