THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON DEFAMATION LAWS IN INDIA

INTRODUCTION

Social media platforms have revolutionized how people share information and communicate,
allowing people to voice their thoughts on a worldwide scale. The legal ramifications of
defamation have also come under scrutiny as a result of this technical innovation. A person's
reputation is crucially protected by defamation laws, but the emergence of social media has
created new difficulties and opportunities for the Indian legal system.

Defamation, in the broadest sense, refers to some kind of statement that is incorrect but is put
forward in the form of a fact and harms/destroys the image or reputation of someone/something
in front of a third party. Cyber-defamation or online defamation, is a situation where a person is
wrongly accused of something online. Libel is the act of making a statement that has the
potential of defaming someone online or on mediums like social media sites, like Instagram,
Twitter, etc., which consists of a word that is written/posted. There is no doubt that these social
media sites are fantastic for fostering growth and development in individuals and society as a
whole, but they also serve as a particularly potent breeding ground for potentially defamatory
claims1.

DEFAMATION LAWS IN INDIA

In India, both criminal and civil laws apply to defamation. While defamation of civil nature is
governed by common law, defamation of criminal nature has its defamation under the Indian
Penal Code. By giving people legal recourse to seek retribution for defamatory claims made
about them, the rules seek to maintain an equilibrium between the protection of image or
reputation and the right to express oneself freely.

Social media sites like Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, and Facebook have greatly increased in
popularity in India, connecting millions of individuals and promoting communication. But in the
context of libel, this quick rise has created particular difficulties.

Indian law's provisions against online defamation include:

1
LEGAL SERVICE INDIA, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1818-social-media-and-online-
defamation.html (last visited Jun 9, 2023).
  Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code2:
According to this section, whoever publishes/creates some kind of imputation about a
person to damage that individual’s image or reputation or knowing or having a reason for
believing that such imputation will damage that individual’s image or reputation, with an
exception of the cases hereinafter excepted, is said to be defaming that individual.
 Article 500 of the Indian Penal Code3:
Punishment is outlined in this section. Any person found in violation of section 499 faces
a two-year prison sentence, a fine, or both. 
 Section 469 of the Indian Penal Code4:
It covers forgery, which occurs when someone fabricates a document or a false narrative
to damage another person's reputation. This offense carries a maximum 3-year prison
sentence and a fine.
 Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 20005:
The Supreme Court invalidated this law in 2015, according to the court. This section
outlined the penalties for sending "offensive" messages by computer, mobile device, or
tablet. Since the government did not make clear where it stood on the word "offensive," it
began using it as a weapon to suppress free speech. The Supreme Court completely
invalidated the clause in 2015.

In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India 6, the entirety of Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act of 20007 is declared invalid since it violates Article 19(1)(a)8 and is not protected
by Article 19(2)9. It is constitutionally acceptable to enact Section 69A 10 and the Information
Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules

2
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 499.
3
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 500.
4
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 469.
5
Information Technology Act, 2000, § 66A.
6
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523.
7
supra note 4
8
INDIA CONST art. 19(1)(a).
9
INDIA CONST art. 19(2).
10
Information Technology Act, 2000, § 69A.
200911. Furthermore, Section 7912 is legitimate subject to the reading down of Section 79(3)(b) 13,
and so on.

CHALLENGES IN DEFAMATION CASES INVOLVING SOCIAL MEDIA

The rise of social media has created several difficulties in lawsuits related to defamation. First
off, because the internet is a transnational medium, establishing jurisdiction and locating the
creator of defamatory content becomes challenging. Additionally, it is difficult to stop
defamatory content from spreading due to the quick transmission of information and the virality
of social media. The identification and accountability of defamatory words are further
complicated by anonymity and pseudonyms employed on these sites. Furthermore, the task of
distinguishing between opinion, satire, and defamation can be very tough on social media, and
doing so frequently needs considerable consideration. An important aspect of India's digital
domain regulation is provided through the Information Technology Act (IT Act). It includes
provisions that deal with internet defamation. Platforms for social media serve as hosts and
enablers for content sharing.

CASE LAWS AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS

Social media-related defamation charges have been filed before Indian courts on several
occasions. These instances have influenced the legal environment and given rise to chances for
judicial interpretation. Insights into the methods used by the courts to maintain an equilibrium
between the protection of image or reputation and the right to express oneself freely can be
attained from examining these examples.

In its first cyber-defamation case, SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra 14, a
dissatisfied worker wrote emails that were libelous and obscene to the workers of the company’s
fellow workers around the globe and the Delhi High Court issued an ex-parte ad interim
injunction preventing the respondent from defaming the applicant in both the physical and online
environment, to slander the company and its managing director.

11
Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
12
Information Technology Act 2000, § 79.
13
Information Technology Act 2000, § 73(3)(b).
14
SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra, BLAPL No. 7596 of 2016.
In the case of Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha15, the applicant was hounded online and a
bogus identity was created using her name. Furthermore, the offender directed vulgar
communications toward acquaintances to defame the Petitioner. The High Court of Orissa ruled
that the actions of the accused constitute online defamation and that he’s liable for his charges of
defamation executed using phony photos and writings.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The right to freely speak and express oneself is guaranteed by the Constitution under Article
19(1)(a)16, which states that people of the nation have the freedom to speak as they wish and
convey the opinions, they have17. This privilege, as it should be, has some reasonable limitations
to it which are mentioned in Article 19(2)18, which include defamation. Defamation is divided
into two types: civil defamation and criminal defamation.

While the freedom to express oneself is protected in India, however, this is not an absolute right.
Article 19(2)19 authorizes the government the power to put restrictions that are reasonable on the
freedom of expression. It is worth noting that there have been discussions in India over the
constitutionality of criminal defamation, with some claiming that it stifles free speech. In certain
situations, the Apex court has maintained the duration of criminal defamation, on the argument
of serving a legitimate goal of safeguarding individuals' reputations.

CONCLUSION

Social media has had a considerable impact on defamation laws in India, necessitating the
necessity for legislative changes in response to the expanding digital ecosystem. Individuals now
have unparalleled opportunities to voice their thoughts and exchange information through social
media platforms, but they have also become breeding grounds for the rapid spread of libelous
content. Due to the anonymity and vast reach given by these platforms, one of the primary
difficulties coming from social media is the difficulty in holding individuals accountable for
defamatory words.

15
Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha, 2017 SCC OnLine Ori 52.
16
supra note 6
17
BLOG IPLEADERS, https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-regulation-of-defamation-in-social-media-sites-jurisdiction-
issues/ (last visited Jun 8, 2023).
18
supra note 7
19
supra note 7
In India, defamation laws have typically centered on print and broadcast media, but they have
had to be enlarged and reinterpreted to include internet defamation. Courts have recognized the
importance of maintaining an equilibrium between the freedom to express oneself and the
safeguarding of the image or reputation of an individual. The Indian judiciary has taken attempts
to modernize defamation laws. However, there are ongoing discussions over social media
corporations' responsibilities in monitoring and censoring user-generated content.

Finally, the development of social media has required a reevaluation of India's defamation laws.
Balancing free speech and protecting individuals from harm necessitates continual legal
framework adaptation and fine-tuning. As social media evolves, politicians and the judiciary
must keep up with technological innovations and developing issues to properly combat
defamation in the digital era.