The Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, on 8 September 2025, presided by District Judge Satyabrata Panda, heard a civil defamation suit against an NDTV journalist Gargi Rawat who had liked a defamatory tweet of the plaintiff which allegedly accused him of rape.
The case arose from a defamatory tweet posted by defendant no.1, a lawyer by profession who often posted tweets on matters of public importance. On 8 December 2019, he posted a tweet which alleged that the plaintiff was a man accused of rape and engaged in hate speech. Following this defendant no.2, a journalist from a popular news hub “liked” the tweet, which caused it to appear on her Twitter profile. The plaintiff claimed this further injured his reputation and sought damages of ₹20 lakhs. During the proceedings, defendant no.1 settled the matter by issuing a public apology, and the suit continued against defendant no.2.In retrospect, it was argued by the defendants that a mere “like” did not amount to publication, that no actual damage was shown, and that the plaintiff himself had a controversial presence on social media.
The Court held that “liking” a defamatory tweet amounts to republication, since it makes the content available on the user’s profile and thereby increases its circulation. The defendant’s failure to enter the witness box and face cross-examination invited an adverse inference that she was aware of the consequences of her act. The Court also noted that in 2019, a “like” on Twitter amounted to republication of defamatory content, especially where the user was a public figure with a large following, thereby widening its reach. It rejected the defence that the plaintiff should have sued others who also liked or shared the tweet, holding that liability could attach to any individual who contributed to publication.However, the allegation that the plaintiff was accused of rape was defamatory per se, mitigating factors—including the apology by the original author, the less direct nature of a “like,” the evolving law on such cases, and the plaintiff’s own controversial conduct—led the Court to award only ₹10,000 as nominal damages, payable within two weeks with an 6% interest if unpaid. The Court also ordered one-fourth costs in favour of the plaintiff and directed permanent deletion of the defamatory tweet from defendant no.2’s profile.
