On Thursday, the Delhi High Court expressed prima facie reservations over BJP MP Raghav Chadha’s plea seeking removal of allegedly defamatory social media posts, observing that criticism of a political decision may not amount to infringement of personality rights. The Court examined the scope of protection available to public figures against online commentary while drawing attention to the thin line separating political criticism from actionable defamation.
The dispute arose after Chadha approached the High Court seeking directions against unidentified and named entities over posts allegedly portraying that he had “sold himself for money” after shifting to the BJP. Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Chadha, argued that the posts crossed the boundary of criticism and damaged his reputation. He pressed for interim relief against the allegedly defamatory content and contended that the allegations could not be defended as political commentary. The Court, however, repeatedly questioned whether the grievance actually involved personality rights, noting that the posts appeared connected to criticism surrounding a political choice made in the public arena.
Justice Subramonium Prasad orally observed that “it is a comment by a person criticising a political decision,” while also remarking that “the line between defamation and criticism is quite thin.” The Court stated that the matter appeared more in the nature of criticism than commercial exploitation of personality rights. The Bench further distinguished earlier personality rights cases involving public figures and indicated that the present controversy may not justify an interim injunction at this stage.
Consequently, the Court reserved its order on Chadha’s plea seeking interim relief against the impugned posts.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :