The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction directing the removal of social media posts that accused a corporate professional of molesting a woman journalist on a flight. Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that revealing the man’s identity and labeling him a “culprit” before a formal investigation constitutes a “severe transgression” of his fundamental right to live with dignity and a fair trial.
The matter arose following an incident on a March 11 IndiGo flight from Delhi to Mumbai. The plaintiff, a corporate professional with over two decades of experience, alleged that the defendant—a woman journalist—abruptly woke him from his sleep and accused him of inappropriate conduct.
According to the lawsuit, the woman published a post on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) at 09:39 AM, identifying the man and sharing his photograph. However, the formal First Information Report (FIR) was not registered until 12:27 PM that same day. The plaintiff contended that this “overhasty public disclosure” triggered a “trial by media” that resulted in his suspension from work and irreparable damage to his reputation.
The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the allegations bore a “striking resemblance” to a narrative in a documentary project previously produced by the defendant journalist regarding harassment in public transport. It was submitted that the media houses and digital platforms involved did not merely report the FIR but prematurely adjudicated the matter by using labels such as “molester.”
In response, the counsel for the woman journalist opposed the passing of a “gag order,” asserting that “truth is the absolute defense” in cases of defamation.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, in his interim order, expressed concern over the “sensationalism” of the allegations on digital platforms. The court noted that the initial social media broadcast preceded the setting of criminal law in motion and that the social media post and the FIR were “at variance” regarding the plaintiff’s identity.
The court specifically addressed the role of public figures in such disputes, highlighting a tweet by actor Richa Chadha that amplified the accusations. The court observed:
“The conduct of defendant no. 7 [Richa Chadha] transcended mere free expression and acted as a ‘catalyst for public shaming and digital vigilantism’.”
The judge further noted that as a public figure, Chadha holds a “legal and moral responsibility” to verify facts before leveraging her platform to amplify grave accusations. While Chadha’s counsel informed the court that the tweet had already been removed, the court cautioned her against precipitating the issue in the future.
Regarding the broader impact on the judicial process, the court stated:
“While defendant no. 1 has an unhindered right to report a grievance, but using social media to circulate allegations of inappropriate touching and revealing the identity of the plaintiff along with his photograph before a formal investigation even commences… is a severe transgression of the plaintiff’s fundamental right to live with dignity and have fair trial.”
The Delhi High Court directed the woman journalist, as well as platforms like ‘OBNews’ and ‘Pardafaash Media’, not to publish any further defamatory allegations against the plaintiff until the next hearing in May.
Furthermore, the court ordered X, Google LLC, and Meta Platforms LLC to “forthwith takedown/remove” the existing defamatory posts. While the court acknowledged that defendants may share the contents of an FIR in the public interest, it emphasized that they must refrain from publishing material that “creates an atmosphere of prejudice” or mars the reputation of an individual while an investigation is underway.
