Grover, Luthra appear before Delhi HC in Raghav Chadha retweet case

Yesterday, the hearing in the petition filed by Raghav Chadha challenging his impleadment in the Arun Jaitley defamation case kicked off at the Delhi High Court..The key issue in the petition is whether a retweet can form the basis of a criminal prosecution..The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal heard the arguments of Senior Advocates Anand Grover (appearing for Chadha) and Siddharth Luthra (appearing for Jaitley). The hearing went on for more than three hours, as both counsel made their arguments..Grover submitted that the complaint by Jaitley is based on electronic records. He stated that if false information which injures the reputation of a person is propagated through electronic media, then this would be covered by the Information Technology Act and not under Section 499 of the IPC. If the allegations had been through print media or made orally, only then Section 499 would apply. He said,.“Section 499 never contemplated electronic media.”.Grover further argued that a retweet does not constitute publication under Section 499. He said that the originator creates a tweet. As far as a retweet is concerned, a lot can be done. But if it is only a simple retweet, the content of the original tweet cannot be changed. .He stated that simply retweeting does not necessarily mean that one is supporting what is said in the tweet. It depends on the context. Even Hillary Clinton once retweeted a derogatory tweet by Donald Trump only to show his mindset..“It is like a newspaper in my hand and I give it to someone. That would not amount to republication. The tweet is already in the public domain. If I retweet it, at most, my followers would be added to the people who know about it.” .Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the Finance Minister, submitted that Chadha and other accused left no stone unturned in making derogatory statements against Jaitley. They did not even spare his family, and had alleged that they too had received benefits from corrupt practices. .Luthra also contended that Chadha himself participated in many press conferences and made defamatory statements against Arun Jaitley..He further argued that the language of the India Penal Code was enough to cover active defamation by any means, be it oral, written or electronic. He stated that a tweet is a comment about a certain thing, act, etc, and retweeting means reiterating the comment, and in this case, reaffirming the libel. It does not matter if you expressly say that or not. .“This is a case of per se defamation and not even implied defamation or defamation by innuendo.”.Chadha had approached the Supreme Court against the July 11 order of the Delhi High Court that refused to stay proceedings against him in the defamation matter..In the Supreme Court, he contended that he had only retweeted the original tweet by Arvind Kejriwal and AAP, which allegedly contained defamatory material against Finance Minister Jaitley. The Supreme Court transferred the matter back to the Delhi High Court and asked it to adjudicate the issue by September 25..The hearing will continue today..Image courtesy:.Siddharth Luthra