1. Whether the defendant proves that the tweet on 1.01.

2022 was libellous in nature

The accessibility of internet to common man has changed everyone's lives. The platform provided by the
internet has made human interaction easier than ever before. However, such increase in convenience of
communication has proportionally increased the inconvenience caused by the abuse of the mediums of
communication. Removing barriers to freedom of interaction, has given unfettered capabilities, primarily
on social networking sites, to people who post unnecessary and false statements about a person or an
entity and thereby harming their goodwill and reputation. Such an act, though colloquially known as
"trolls", actually amounts to cyber defamation.

What is Cyber Defamation and how is it different from Physical Defamation?

Defamation has been defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as

whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes
or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to
believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person is said to defame that person.

Defamation falls into two categories:

1. Libel1 – A defamatory statement published in a written form.

2. Slander – A defamatory statement made in a verbal form (spoken).

However, a mere defamatory statement does not amount to defamation. The publication of such
statement is a pre-requisite to establish defamation.

Similarly, any such act taking place on the cyber space leads to cyber defamation or online defamation.
Cyber defamation occurs when a computer connected to the internet is used as a tool, or a medium to
defame a person or an entity. For example: Publishing of a defamatory statement against a person on a
social networking site such as Facebook, Twitter, etc., or sending of emails containing defamatory content
about a person with the intention to defame him / her. Further, given the broad coverage of internet and
the rate of dissemination of information on this platform, it is difficult to ascertain the extent of damage in
any monetary value.

Although, the medium of committing this act in the physical and digital world are different, the law of
defamation applies the same. The liability regarding cyber defamation in India can be:

1. On the author of the defamatory material online;

2. On the service provider or an intermediary. However, it is pertinent to note that as per Section 79
of the Information Technology Act, 2000, an intermediary shall not be liable if it does not initiate or
modify such defamatory content but merely acts as a facilitator. Further, this protection is also
subject to the condition that the intermediary shall comply with the due diligence and Intermediary
Guidelines requirements issued by the Central Government and also remove such unlawful
content on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency or upon receiving actual
knowledge.

1 Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication
embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or
ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession as per Legal Information Institute
In the case of Bonnard v. Perryman2

The Court has jurisdiction to restrain by injunction, and even by an interlocutory

order, the publication of a libel. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary,
and an interlocutory order should not be granted an exception of in the clearest
cases—in cases in which, if a jury didn’t discover that the matter complained of to be
libelous, the Court would put aside the decision as unreasonable. An interlocutory
injunction should not be granted when the Defendant swears that he will have the
option to legitimize the defamation, and the Court isn’t satisfied that he may unable
to do so.

This principle has been trailed by a division bench of the Delhi High Court in the
2002 instance of Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi3As such, regardless of
whether there is an apprehension that the content might be defamatory, it is likely
that publication would not be controlled pt in exceptional cases — apparently, those
situations where the later payment of damages would not suffice to set right the
wrong done to the individual defamed. In non-outstanding circumstances, Indian
courts have demonstrated an inclination to support free speech, and have not shown
a tendency to grant an injunction which would have the impact of muzzling speech
on the ground of possible defamation. It is significant to make reference to that a
defamation bill was proposed by the Rajiv Gandhi government to manage the law
relating to defamation. However, Defamation Bill, 1988 4 received widespread
criticism from the media and resistance groups because of its draconian
arrangements; subsequently it was withdrawn.

2 [1891]2 Ch 269
3 AIR 2002 Delhi 58
4 Index censorship refer to referendum pg.2