Introduction:

In a significant development, the Supreme Court temporarily suspended trial proceedings in a defamation case against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The case revolves around Kejriwal’s retweet of a video on social media platform ‘X,’ accusing the BJP IT Cell. The AAP chief moved the Supreme Court challenging the summons issued to him, following a Delhi High Court ruling. A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta adjourned the hearing, allowing time for the complainant to consider closing the case after Kejriwal admitted to the retweet being a mistake.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the defamation case stemmed solely from a retweet, emphasizing the identical nature of the content without additions or deletions. Singhvi raised concerns about the complaint being refiled nine months after withdrawal, challenging the grounds for issuing notice. Justice Khanna, during the proceedings, delved into the nuanced interpretation of retweets—whether they imply endorsement or merely sharing information found on social media.

The court acknowledged Kejriwal’s admission of the retweet being a mistake but questioned whether it was a matter of evidence. Singhvi expressed his intent to challenge the view taken by the high court on retweets. The bench then sought the complainant’s stance on closing the case in light of Kejriwal’s admission.

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court, recognizing the need for a nuanced understanding of retweets, temporarily halted trial proceedings. The bench adjourned the hearing until March 11, allowing the complainant’s lawyer to seek instructions on closing the case. It explicitly directed that the trial court refrain from taking up the matter in the interim. Justice Khanna clarified that there was no stay order on Kejriwal’s arrest, but the focus was on allowing due process and fair consideration of the case.

The court’s keen observation on retweets as endorsements or information sharing underscored the complexity of social media dynamics and their legal implications. The decision to adjourn reflects a balanced approach, considering Kejriwal’s admission and affording the complainant an opportunity to assess closing the case.