The Delhi High Court decreed a defamation suit filed by IRPS officer Anjali Birla, daughter of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, in relation to social media allegations concerning her UPSC qualification, while directing the removal of objectionable content from digital platforms. The Court also observed that any identical future posts flagged by the plaintiff must be removed promptly by the platforms concerned.
The matter stemmed from defamatory allegations circulating on various social media platforms which claimed that Anjali Birla had cleared the UPSC Civil Services Examination in her first attempt through misuse of her father’s public position and engagement in corrupt means. These claims, widely shared online, prompted the initiation of a civil defamation suit before the Delhi High Court against X (formerly Twitter), Google, and unidentified parties (John Doe).
Earlier, in July of the previous year, a coordinate bench of the High Court had issued an interim injunction, restraining the continued publication of the impugned posts and ordering their immediate removal by X Corp and Google, as flagged by Birla in her plaint.
Appearing before Justice Jyoti Singh during final adjudication, counsel for X informed the Court that of the 16 posts identified in the suit, 12 had been voluntarily removed by their original creators, and the remaining 4 had been blocked by the platform in compliance with the earlier interim direction.
In view of these developments, the Court decreed the suit, directing X to permanently remove the remaining 4 posts and further mandating that any future posts bearing identical defamatory content, if brought to X’s notice by Birla, should also be expeditiously removed. Google was similarly directed to take down one specific post that had previously been blocked under the interim order.
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar and Advocate Aditya Bharat Manubarwala and Advocate Sanyam Khetarpal, contended that the impugned posts and tweets amounted to targeted character assassination. It was asserted that the content in question was laced with defamatory innuendos, derogatory language, and unsubstantiated allegations, which not only undermined Birla’s personal reputation but also adversely impacted her standing as a public official.
The petitioner further submitted that the dissemination of such remarks across social media platforms was inflicting serious reputational damage, warranting immediate and continued judicial intervention. Additionally, based on her complaint, an FIR had been registered by the Maharashtra Cyber Cell against the Twitter handle “Dhruv Rathee (Parody)” and others under Sections 78, 79, 318(2), 352, 356(2), 353(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alongside Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
While decreeing the suit, the Court clarified that all questions of law raised by the parties remain open for determination in any appropriate proceedings. Notably, Anjali Birla did not press for any monetary damages or seek a refund of Court fees.
In conclusion, the High Court directed complete compliance with the removal of defamatory content, thereby closing the matter, while underscoring the continuing obligation of digital platforms to act upon future complaints regarding similar posts.
Picture Source :
