Important statement by the Delhi High Court. The salient thing they said was people on social media should learn that social media criticisms are a reality. There are good and bad things in a person’s post. The bench expressed this opinion to close the defamation case.
Law Sikho, an online law admission tool, made the case. Some people on X (previously known as Twitter) started to drop bad mode Twitch. This was a post from the @LawSikho user that retweeted this, sparking online criticisms.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora sat on the court bench. The Law Sikho person wanted a Reaction, he expressed the Judge said it was akin to “online trolling,” a common form of social media criticisms.
Tweet Ignited Controversy
A Law Sikho user said in a tweet, “Top law firms hire graduates who are ‘not good'”. The fact that top law firms recruit from National Law Universities (NLUs) made NLU graduates angry, leading to criticisms.
Law Sikho Account opined the tweet was for highlighting a problem. They claimed it was all about law students, partners and institutes. They felt that the replies were misogynistic and polarized their brand, exemplifying harsh online criticisms.
Judicial Perspective on Social Media Critiques
The court referred to the first tweet as “online trolling” and was looking forward to reading the strong reaction. That way, he can gain more subscribers. The judge pointed out this is a new way of forcing the hit to be delivered, acknowledging the impact of social media criticisms.
Law Sikho was not all bad at first with the tweets, said Justice Arora. But, when others started entering and laughing too they filed this suit, highlighting the escalation of social media criticisms.
Court imposed ₹1 lakh penalty on Law Sikho. Justice Arora also added that nowadays the first tweet was like Trolling. Law Sikho liked the first response. BUT then they sued after it started a campaign against them by others, demonstrating the complexities of criticisms.
Users Need to Accept Critiques on Social Media
Justice Arora spoke to the people who must manage social media criticisms. You will also get praised and ridiculed in return.
Justice also said that opinion should be subjective. Defamation has to lead to harm; otherwise it is just an opinion, emphasizing the nature of social media criticisms.
The case, according to the court, was not suitable. Law Sikho did something wrong somewhere. They did not even approach the right officer with regard to the tweets. They went to court too late after the tweets. It is true that on the whole, social media criticisms are a side-effect of having a presence online.
Read Also: Trump Introduces Gold Card US Visa: What does this mean for Indians?