New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has criticized social media platform X Corp (formerly Twitter) for challenging a directive to remove defamatory posts by Congress leaders. The posts accused prominent journalist Rajat Sharma of using abusive language against Congress spokesperson Ragini Nayak during a live television debate.
The bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, voiced strong disapproval of X Corp’s reluctance to comply with the court’s order. The Acting Chief Justice highlighted a concerning trend of social media platforms resisting judicial directives, emphasizing the need for X Corp to act as a neutral entity and adhere to legal mandates.
“Social media platforms must understand the importance of complying with court orders, especially when it involves the reputation of individuals,” Justice Gedela remarked, questioning the platform’s opposition to the order.
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, representing X Corp, argued that the platform has no personal stake in the content of the posts and stressed the necessity for a structured process in handling such requests.
ALSO READ: Disney Star and Beatgrid Team Up to Revolutionize Ad Measurement in India
The controversy stems from an ex parte order issued on June 14th, which instructed the removal of specific social media posts and videos by Indian National Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh, and Pawan Khera. The court found that the Congress leaders had exaggerated the incident and misrepresented the facts, leading to potential harm to Rajat Sharma’s reputation.
Rajat Sharma, a well-known journalist and television personality, has filed a defamation suit seeking ₹100 crore in damages. He contends that the allegations made by the Congress leaders are baseless and have severely tarnished his professional reputation.
The Delhi High Court’s stern stance underscores the judiciary’s expectation for social media platforms to responsibly manage content and swiftly act on court orders to prevent the spread of misinformation and defamation.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between the judiciary and social media platforms regarding content regulation and the responsibility of these platforms to maintain a balanced and neutral stance while ensuring compliance with legal obligations.
