Desecration of reputation of public figure has become child’s play: Five takeaways from the Delhi High Court judgment on Saket Gokhale's tweets

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed journalist Saket Gokhale to take down his tweets in which he had alleged impropriety on the part of former United Nations officer Lakshmi Puri related to the purchase of a flat in Switzerland..While doing so, Justice C Hari Shankar held that the allegations were unfounded, and that Gokhale ought to have conducted due diligence before putting out the tweets in question..The judgment also made some interesting observations on the nature of social media interactions and how easy it is to sully the reputation of public figures on platforms like Twitter..Here are five takeaways from today's judgment..1. No lack of transparency in disclosures made by Puri, husband.The judgment states,"I am unable to find, prima facie, even a scintilla of impropriety, or lack of transparency, either in the purchase of the apartment, or in the disclosures made to the statutory authorities in that regard, either by the plaintiff or by her husband."The Court also held that Puri and her husband - Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri - were not required to disclose details of a loan as well as money received from their daughter for the purchase of the Swiss apartment."I have scrutinised the affidavits filed by the plaintiff’s husband while standing for elections, and I do not, prima facie, find any concealment therein. Mr. Maninder Singh is correct in his submission that there is no column, in the said affidavits, which would require including the details of the finances provided by the plaintiff’s daughter towards purchase of the Swiss Apartment," the judgment said..2. Gokhale's tweets are erroneous on three counts.The Court held that the tweets in question were erroneous for the following reasons:"(i) The plaintiff was not posted on deputation with the UNCTAD. She had taken leave consequent to having joined UN posting with the UNCTAD. She remained on leave from 2002 to 2011, and took voluntary retirement from the IFS in 2011. (ii) The plaintiff was not in an annual pay band of ₹ 10-12 lakhs, but was drawing tax-free pay, from the UN, in the region of CHF 250,000 to 300,000 per annum (which, as per the then prevailing exchange rate of Swiss Francs to Indian Rupees, works out to ₹ 84,10,825 to ₹ 1,00,92,990 per annum).(iii) Once again, the defendant sought to convey a misleading impression that the Swiss Apartment had been bought out of the pay of the plaintiff, concealing the availment of Bank loan by the plaintiff, as well as the money provided by her daughter, for the said purpose.".3. Criticism always makes for better press than praise.The Court pointed out how social media facilitates an "unfortunate" quality of human nature."It is an unfortunate truism, of human nature – which forms subject matter of philosophical debate since ages – that we prefer brickbats to bouquets. Criticism always makes for better press than praise, and the more vitriolic the criticism, the better. The exponential fashion in which social media platforms have evolved, has provided fertile soil for the growth and mushrooming of this unfortunate human tendency. Social media, for all its unquestionable and undeniable benefits, as well as its indispensability in modern times, comes with its own sordid sequelae. The present instance appears to be a case in point.".Lamenting the ease with which one can make damaging statements on platforms like Twitter, the Court said,"In the age of social media, desecration of the reputation of a public figure has become child’s play. All that is needed is the opening of a social media account and, thereafter, the posting of messages on the account. Thousands of responses are received and, in the process, the reputation of the man, who is targeted, becomes mud. In the present case itself, Mr. Maninder Singh has pointed out that, till the date of filing of the suit, the tweets posted by the defendant had been “liked” by more than 26,270 users and “re-tweeted” by more than 8,280 users. 40 pages of responding tweets, by members of the defendant’s target audience, have also been placed on record, with several of the tweets being, to say the least, in very poor taste, containing abuses, allegations and opprobrious epithets against the plaintiff as well as her husband. The damage that the plaintiff, and her husband, have suffered, as a result of the tweets of the defendant is apparent; but that is one of the unavoidable pitfalls of access to social media platforms and the way in which they work, by those who abuse their facility, as the defendant has, in the present case, prima facie chosen to do.".4. Due diligence required before posting such messages.During the hearing of the case, counsel for Gokhale, Advocate Sarim Naved had submitted that his client was not required to undertake any due diligence or even verify the information by checking with Puri and her husband.The Court disagreed with this submission, stating in the judgment,"I am unable to accept the submission, of Mr. Naved, that, before posting messages on a social media platform, made accessible to all members of the public, against any person, no due diligence, by way of conducting, at the very least, a preliminary enquiry into the facts, is necessary. Such a submission, if accepted, would place the reputation of every citizen in the country in serious jeopardy, and open to ransom at the hands of every social media vigilante, some of whose intentions may be less than honourable."This was all the more important when statements are made against public figures, the Court said, noting that such statements attract much more adverse, and derogatory comments than those against persons who do not live in the public gaze..Stating how Gokhale should have gone about his endeavour, the Court said,"To my mind, before posting tweets such as those which were posted by the defendant against the plaintiff, it was incumbent on the defendant to carry out a preliminary due diligence exercise. Ideally, in the first instance, clarifications ought to have been sought from the person against whom the messages were intended to be posted. If, in a given case, such an exercise was felt to be counter-productive, enquiries and clarifications have, nonetheless, to be sought from the available official sources.".5. Tagging Finance Minister does not fulfil requirement of due diligence.The Court held,"That the defendant is aware of this requirement is manifest from the “tagging”, by him, of the Hon’ble Finance Minister in his tweets. Such “tagging” has, however, no sanctity whatsoever in law and is, in any event, woefully inadequate to serve as notice to the Hon’ble Finance Minister regarding the issues which the defendant was choosing to highlight......The defendant ought, in the first instance, to have made enquiries with the official authorities, be it the Ministry of Finance or the Election Commission, before choosing to belabour the reputation of the plaintiff through his Twitter account. That he did not choose to do so, despite being aware of the availability of credible sources of information, additionally casts a cloud on his bona fides.".[Read Judgment]