A defamation suit filed by legal ed-tech company LawSikho against four individuals over critical tweets and defamatory remarks over its courses was recently dismissed with costs by Delhi HC. The Court not only rejected the suit but also imposed Rs 1 lakh costs on LawSikho for failing to disclose the full Twitter conversation.
The controversy sparked when LawSikho’s representative, Ramanuj Mukherjee, initiated a debate on ‘X’ highlighting the effectiveness of legal education at NLUs and LawSikho’s courses. Advocates Aditya Garg and Ashish Goel, among others, responded by critiquing LawSikho’s quality, prompting the defamation suit.
Hearing the case, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ruled that defamation claims arising from social media disputes must include the entire thread for the context. The Court held that tweets cannot be assessed in isolation and that exchanges on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) are informal, fast-paced, and often “impressionistic and fleeting” and not deeply persuasive.
Highlights from the Judgement
- The Court found that LawSikho’s representative, Ramanuj Mukherjee, himself initiated the controversy by posting a provocative tweet on NLUs. The Court referenced academic studies on “Online Trolling,” showcasing how some users intentionally provoke responses:
“A holistic reading of the Lead Tweet published by plaintiff no. 2 and the various response tweets published by defendant nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5… shows that the impugned Conversation Threads Nos. 1 and 2 which emanated therefrom falls within the parameters of ‘Online Trolling’ as recognized in the aforesaid research study.”
Additionally, the Court noted:
“Plaintiff no. 2 playfully engaged in this banter with defendant nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5; plaintiff no. 2 responded to the said defendants’ tweets and published his response tweets. In its response tweets, the plaintiff no.2 seemed to be enjoying the sparring with the defendants.”
Thus, the reactionary tweets could not be considered defamatory since Mukherjee himself actively participated and provoked the responses.
- The Court emphasized that defamation suits based on social media must include the entire conversation thread:
“The Court notes that a plaintiff alleging defamation on social media platform arising out of a conversation thread must mandatorily disclose the full conversation thread, particularly his own tweets/comments as well and should approach the Court with clean hands.”
Since LawSikho selectively presented only certain tweets while omitting its own responses, the Court found that it had not approached with “clean hands”.
- Citing Nidhi Bhatnagar (Dr.) v. CitiBank N.A., the Court distinguished between real reputational harm and mere personal offense:
“It is not enough for a person to sue for words which merely injure his feelings or annoys him. Injuries to feelings of a man cannot be made a basis for claiming damages on the ground of defamation.”
The HC further added:
“The plaintiffs have with the plaint not annexed any documents, which would show that its reputation as a matter of fact was injured on account of the Impugned Tweet No.3.”
Thus, without actual harm, no cause of action for defamation could be established.
- The Court compared social media posts with newspaper publications and found that tweets should not be over-analyzed:
“The newspapers and magazines are read with the intent to collect and retain information and, therefore, it bears effect in forming of opinions. In contrast, the casual medium of a conversational social media platform such as ‘X’ is not perceived by the users of the said platform as a reliable verified source of information.”
“This is a conversational medium; so it would be wrong to engage in elaborate analysis of a 140-character tweet; that an impressionistic approach is much more fitting and appropriate to the medium.” (Citing Stocker v. Stocker, UK Supreme Court, 2020)
This reinforced the idea that tweets should not be treated with the same gravity as traditional media publications.
- The Court took note of LawSikho’s pattern of filing defamation suits against critics:
“Plaintiff no. 2 is a habitual litigant who frequently files suits for injunction against persons, who post negative reviews against the courses offered by plaintiff no. 1 by way of social media posts.”
The Court also directed LawSikho to disclose details of past cases and found that six such lawsuits had been filed against individuals making negative comments online.
- The Court criticized LawSikho for not first approaching X’s Grievance Officer as per the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021:
“There has been a significant legal development in [the] year 2021 empowering the users of social media platform[s] to seek immediate and efficacious relief against posts of users which in his/her opinion are defamatory or libellous…”
“…In the facts of this case, the plaintiffs have not availed the said statutory remedy and have in fact elected to file the present suit.”
Since LawSikho bypassed the statutory grievance redressal mechanism, the Court found its suit premature and unnecessary.
- One of the impugned tweets merely called Mukherjee an “insecure little prick crying defamation over a tweet”—the Court ruled this was not defamatory:
“The distinction between a defamatory post and a post which contained vulgar abuse on the medium of X must be recognized. A vulgar post would not give rise to any cause of action for damages/defamation.” (Citing Vine v. Barton, 2024, UK)
Thus, offensive language alone is not sufficient to establish defamation.
- The Court advised LawSikho to be more tolerant of online criticism, remarking:
“A post published on a social media platform is bound either to be appreciated or criticised and the user has to have broad shoulders to bear the criticism.”
“Plaintiff no. 2 should have maintained the proverbial thick skin qua the tweets of an anonymous user which ex-facie are intended as an insult.”
Thus, social media interactions are expected to be fast-paced, reactionary, and not to be taken as formal, serious allegations.
Case Details: Addictive Learning Technology Limited & Anr V. Aditya Garg & Ors.
Useful References:
- https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2025-02-26/rm0otb87/Addictive_Learning_Technology_Limited___Anr_V__Aditya_Garg___Ors_.pdf
- https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-slaps-1-lakh-costs-lawsikho-filing-defamation-case-without-full-disclosure
About Author
Tanishq, a law student at the Department of Legal Studies and Research, Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal, is a budding legal writer with a sharp eye for evolving legal landscapes. Passionate about Intellectual Property Rights, Constitutional Law, and Women and Child Safety Laws, Tanishq actively explores contemporary legal nuances through writing and research.
