In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, presided over by Justice Subodh Abhyankar, dismissed a defamation petition filed by Air Marshal Harish Masand (Retd.) against multiple respondents. The court held that merely expressing agreement with a defamatory post in a WhatsApp group does not amount to defamation unless specific defamatory statements are made by the individuals themselves.
Background of the Case
The case, MCRC No. 10231 of 2024, revolves around a private defamation complaint filed by Air Marshal Harish Masand (Retd.) against multiple respondents, including Sandeep Gupta and Lieutenant Colonel Jagdish Pahuja (Retd.), in the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore. The complaint stemmed from a series of posts made in a WhatsApp group named “Signals Vihar Common Room,” which was created for the residents of a housing society.
According to the petitioner, the initial defamatory post was made by Sandeep Gupta on February 21, 2023, which was subsequently liked and supported by other members of the group, including family members of Sandeep Gupta and other residents of the society. Air Marshal Masand argued that by agreeing to or supporting the initial defamatory post, the other accused persons were also liable for defamation.
Legal Issues Involved
The main legal issue in this case was whether expressing agreement or supporting a defamatory statement made by another individual in a WhatsApp group could itself constitute defamation. The petitioner, Air Marshal Masand, contended that all the group members who expressed support should be held liable. However, the respondents, represented by Advocate Shri Rishiraj Trivedi, argued that mere agreement without making a direct defamatory statement does not fulfill the criteria for defamation under Indian law.
The case also examined the scope of vicarious liability in defamation and the extent to which individuals in a group could be held responsible for statements made by others.
Court’s Decision
The court, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, dismissed the petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The Hon’ble Justice Subodh Abhyankar emphasized that no illegality or jurisdictional error was found in the orders passed by the lower courts. He noted that the two principal accused, Sandeep Gupta and Lieutenant Colonel Jagdish Pahuja, were the ones who had made specific defamatory remarks, while the other respondents only expressed passing remarks of agreement.
Justice Abhyankar observed:
“Merely expressing one’s agreement to a post by a one-liner may be tantamount to agreeing to the expression made by other members of the group; however, the court is also required to see the conversation in its entirety and the context in which it was made.”
The court further held that:
“The comments by other members appear to have been made without any premeditation and on the spur of the moment. They do not exhibit an intention to defame the petitioner.”
Justice Abhyankar clarified that the purpose of the WhatsApp group was to facilitate communication regarding day-to-day activities within the housing society. The critical comments made were part of a spontaneous discussion and did not demonstrate an intent to harm the reputation of the petitioner. Therefore, only those who made direct defamatory statements — Sandeep Gupta and Lt. Col. Jagdish Pahuja — could be held liable.
The court also distinguished the present case from earlier Supreme Court decisions cited by the petitioner, including Balraj Khanna vs. Moti Ram and Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra, finding that the facts and context in the current matter were substantially different.
Parties and Representation
– Petitioner: Air Marshal Harish Masand (Retd.), appeared in person.
– Respondents:
– Sandeep Gupta
– Lt. Col. Jagdish Pahuja (Retd.)
– Family members of Sandeep Gupta: Mrs. Jasbir Gupta (mother), Viveksheel Gupta (brother), Reshma Gupta (sister-in-law), Khushboo Gupta (wife), and Col. S.S. Aulakh.
– Legal Representation:
– For the State (Respondent No. 1): Shri S. S. Thakur, Public Prosecutor
– For Respondent Nos. 2 to 6: Advocate Shri Rishiraj Trivedi
