MANU/DE/4266/2024

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC :4796

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 300/2021 and I.A. 1990/2022
Decided On: 01.07.2024
Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri Vs. Saket Gokhale and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate, Meghna Mishra,
Tarun Sharma, Palak Sharma and Shreyansh Rathi, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant: Aadhar Nautiyal and Deepak Gogia, Advocates
Case Note:
Civil - Defamatory tweets - Suit against - Present suit was filed seeking
removal of offensive tweets, prevention of further tweets, apology, and
damages of Rs. 5 crores from defendant No. 1 - Whether case made out to
grant directions for removing offensive tweets, prevent further tweets,
compel apology, and award damages of Rs. 5 crores against defendant No. 1 -
Held, plaintiff, figure of high reputation due to her roles as Ambassador and
UN official, suffered significant harm from false and damaging tweets - This
affected her social standing and caused psychological distress - Allegations of
financial impropriety, despite being false, tarnished her reputation in public
and official circles - Widespread dissemination of these tweets on social
media exacerbated damage - Rs. 50 lakhs awarded in damages - Suit decreed.
[98],[99],[100],[108],[109]
JUDGMENT
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.
1. INTRODUCTION
"Good name in man - and woman - dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of
their souls;
Who steals my purse, steals trash: 'tis something nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands. But he that filches from
me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed." 1

2. The plaintiff has been impelled to file this suit by reason of certain 'tweets' put-out
by defendant No. 1 in the public domain, which the plaintiff claims have defamed her
and her family. The tweets that the plaintiff finds offensive are set-out subsequently in
the judgment.

03-06-2025 (Page 1 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

3 . The plaintiff contends that the tweets contain malicious falsehood, as a result of
which her reputation has been tarnished. She seeks a direction to defendant No. 1 to
take-down and delete the offending tweets from the public domain; an order restraining
him from publishing any further tweets in the same vein; an unconditional apology from
defendant No. 1; as well as a decree of damages in the sum of Rs. 5 crores, with a
further direction that the money be deposited in the Prime Minister 's Citizen Assistance
and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund ("PM CARES Fund '). The plaintiff also seeks
costs of the present proceedings.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
4. The plaintiff avers that she is a person of high accomplishment and reputation. The
averments in the plaint relating to the plaintiff's achievements may be summarised as
follows :
4.1. The plaintiff was a career diplomat, who joined the Indian Foreign Service
('IFS') in 1974 and served as an Indian diplomat for 28 years upto 2002.
4.2. During her tenure in the IFS, the plaintiff is stated to have served in
various capacities in Japan, Sri Lanka and Switzerland; and later as India 's
Ambassador to Hungry, being accredited to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
4.3. That apart, the plaintiff is stated to have served for more than 15 years,
between October 2002 and February 2018, at the United Nations ('UN') in
senior positions. She is stated to have served as Director of the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development ('UNCTAD'), for which role she was
selected through an internationally competitive recruitment process; and which
role she served while on lien from the Government of India for that period.
4.4. The plaintiff subsequently served as the Assistant Secretary- General of
the UN as well as Deputy Executive Director of UN-WOMEN, a UN entity working
for gender equality and empowerment of women, which was then a newly
formed organisation, which the plaintiff helmed for around 07 years.
4.5. The plaintiff is the recipient of several prestigious international awards and
accolades, including the Eleanor Roosevelt Human Rights Award; the Novus
Award for Championing Sustainable Development Goals; the Millennium
Campus Award 2015; and the Global Generation Award as Inspiration for Youth
among others, the details whereof have been set-out in Document No. 1 filed
alongwith the plaint.
4.6. The plaintiff has also narrated her multi-faceted experience in bilateral and
multilateral diplomacy and the many areas of public administration that she has
been involved with in the course of her career.
4.7. The plaintiff has also given a brief description of her family background, to
show that her parents and her sister have also devoted their life in the service
of the nation, having enjoyed a reputation of honesty, integrity and probity in
their personal as well as public lives.
4.8. Most pertinently, the plaintiff has stated that her husband Mr. Hardeep
Singh Puri, has also had a distinguished career as an IFS Officer of the 1974
batch; and has served at Ambassador-level posts for more than 12 years
between 1999 to 2013. The plaintiff's husband is also stated to have worked for

03-06-2025 (Page 2 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

 the United Nations Development Programme from 1988 to 1991; he is stated to
have served as the Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations in
Geneva, Switzerland from 2002 to 2005, and subsequently in New York, USA
from 2009 to 2013. The plaintiff has also set-out other achievements of her
husband, including the fact that since September 2017 he has been serving as a
Minister in the Central Government.
5. The plaintiff's grievance, for which she seeks redressal by way of the present suit, is
that through a series of tweets put-out on his Twitter- handle "@SaketGokhale" on the
social-media platform Twitter (now known as "X '), defendant No. 1 has tarnished her
good name and reputation by making reckless and false allegations in relation to her
financial affairs in the context of an apartment that she owns in Geneva, Switzerland.
6 . For clarity, though the social-media platform "Twitter ' has since been renamed as
'X', in this judgment the platform has been referred to as 'Twitter' and the statements
issued on it as 'tweets'.
7 . The plaintiff has prefaced her allegations against defendant No. 1 by pointing-out
that defendant No. 1 has about 2,08,700 followers on his Twitter-handle and that he
also solicits and receives funds by way of 'crowdfunding' through the same. To this end,
the plaintiff draws attention to a "pinned tweet ' that appears on defendant No. 1 's
Twitter-handle, which reads as follows :

(extracted from court record)

8 . The series of tweets which the plaintiff claims have defamed her, and which are
hereinafter, individually and collectively, referred to as the 'offending tweets', are
tabulated below :

03-06-2025 (Page 3 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

03-06-2025 (Page 4 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan
 (extracted from court record)
9. The plaintiff has also set-out in the plaint the Uniform Resource Locators ("URLs ') of
the offending tweets, through which the tweets can be accessed on the social-media
platform Twitter. It may be mentioned here that vide judgment dated 13.07.2021 made
in the present proceedings, defendant No. 1 was directed to remove the offending
tweets from his Twitter-handle, which is stated to have been done.

03-06-2025 (Page 5 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

10. The court has heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
plaintiff. As recorded in order dated 21.02.2024, since no claim was made against
defendant No. 2/X. Corp., Mr. Deepak Gogia, learned counsel appearing for defendant
No. 2 was not called-upon to address the court.
11. For completeness it may be noted that the record of the proceedings shows, that
though no formal summons were issued in the present suit, defendant No. 1 had
entered appearance in the matter on 08.07.2021 on advance service; and subsequently,
vide judgment dated 13.07.2021, this court had issued interim directions to defendant
No. 1 to delete the offending tweets and other connected tweets from his Twitter-
handle; and had also restrained defendant No. 1 from posting any defamatory,
scandalous or factually incorrect tweets against the plaintiff or her husband. As
recorded in order dated 24.11.2021, defendant No. 1 had complied with the directions
issued by this court and had filed Compliance Affidavit dated 07.09.2021 confirming so.
Thereafter, defendant No. 1 had also filed his written statement dated 18.09.2021 and
an Affidavit of Admission/Denial of Documents dated 18.10.2021 in the matter. The
delay in filing the written statement was condoned by the learned Joint Registrar and
the written statement was taken on record vide order dated 10.02.2022.
Subsequently replication dated 03.02.2022 was also filed by the plaintiff.
12. As recorded in order dated 23.08.2023, Mr. Sarim Naved, learned counsel who was
appearing for defendant No. 1 had sought discharge in the matter on that date,
whereupon a fresh court notice was issued to defendant No. 1, which was duly served
upon him. This was duly recorded by the learned Joint Registrar in order dated
25.09.2023.
1 3 . However, since defendant No. 1 chose not to be represented in the matter
thereafter, he was set ex-parte vide order dated 19.12.2023.
1 4 . Considering the manner in which the case has proceeded, issues were never
formally framed in the suit. However, the issues that require consideration in the
present case are as follows :
Issue No. 1 : Whether the offending tweets, or any of them, have defamed the
plaintiff ' OPP.
Issue No. 2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction
directing defendant No. 1 to issue and publish an unconditional apology to the
plaintiff for having put-out the offending tweets ' OPP.
Issue No. 3 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction
restraining defendant No. 1 from publishing any further tweet in relation to the
imputations made in the offending tweets ' OPP.
Issue No. 4 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages against
defendant No. 1 for defamation resulting from the offending tweets; and, if so,
in what amount ' OPP.
Issue No. 5 : Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS
15. The plaintiff's contentions in relation to the offending tweets are the following :

03-06-2025 (Page 6 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

 15.1. That the 02 tweets put-out by defendant No. 1 on 13.06.2021 reveal that
he had intended and planned to issue malicious and defamatory statements
against the plaintiff subsequently. Prior to putting-out the tweets on
13.06.2021, defendant No. 1 did not verify any facts from the plaintiff and then
went on to put-out a series of tweets on 23.06.2021, in a manner which clearly
smacks of a deliberate intention on the part of defendant No. 1 to defame the
plaintiff.
15.2. That the contents of the offending tweets are factually incorrect, false
and per-se defamatory of the plaintiff and her family.
15.3. That defendant No. 1 was under a minimum obligation to cross- check
and confirm facts with the plaintiff, before putting-out false information in the
public domain through his Twitter- handle; but that he deliberately chose not to
do so, since the tweets were put-out with ulterior motive and were designed to
achieve some collateral objective.
15.4. That, as is evident from the contents of the offending tweets, the thrust
of the insinuation made by defendant No. 1 is that the plaintiff, being an IFS
Officer on a government salary, could not have afforded to buy a 'house' in
Geneva, Switzerland within her financial means; and that therefore, the plaintiff
has indulged in financial wrongdoing.
15.5. That the offending tweets also insinuate that the property in Geneva,
Switzerland could not have been purchased even with the income of the
plaintiff and her husband put together. Defendant No. 1 then purports to draw
the attention of the Finance Minister of the Union Government to the plaintiff's
financial affairs, asking that the plaintiff 's financial affairs be inquired into in
the context of the Prime Minister's promise to bring back unaccounted wealth
stashed-away by Indians abroad. Defendant No. 1 also questions whether the
Finance Minister would order an enquiry by the Enforcement Directorate (viz.
the investigating agency under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002)
into how the plaintiff and her husband acquired the money to buy property
abroad.
15.6. That a perusal of the offending tweets shows that the only documents to
which defendant No. 1 refers, are the declarations made by the plaintiff 's
husband as part of his nomination papers for election to the Rajya Sabha on
two occasions, which require a candidate to furnish on affidavit the details of
assets and liabilities of the candidate, their spouse, as well as their dependants;
and that no further enquiry was done by defendant No. 1 before putting-out the
offending tweets.
16. To answer the allegations made against the plaintiff by way of the offending tweets,
in the plaint she explains the source of funds through which she purchased the property
in Geneva, Switzerland, as follows :
16.1. Firstly, the plaintiff explains that what she purchased in Geneva was an
'apartment' and not a 'house' as falsely asserted by defendant No. 1 in the
offending tweets.
16.2. The plaintiff submits that the apartment was bought on 31.03.2005; the
total cost of purchase of the apartment was Swiss Francs (CHF) 1.6 million, of
which CHF 1.0 million was funded by the plaintiff through a loan from UBS
03-06-2025 (Page 7 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan
 Bank, Geneva, Switzerland; and the balance CHF 0.6 million was funded by the
plaintiff 's daughter, who was then working as Senior Vice President with an
international investment bank in New York, USA. To substantiate this
submission, the plaintiff has filed along with the plaint Document No. 7
evidencing the loan/mortgage obtained from UBS Bank, Geneva. She has also
filed remittance advices from J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., New York, USA as
Document No. 6, to evidence the transfer of money to the plaintiff by her
daughter in New York, USA at the relevant time.
16.3. The plaintiff explains that she served as Director, UNCTAD for 07 years
between 2002-2009 and her total earning in the year 2005 was equivalent to
USD 212,149.71. An Attestation from the United Nations Office evidencing that
submission is filed alongwith the plaint as Document No. 5. The plaintiff states
that thereafter she served as Assistant Secretary-General at the UN in New York
from 2011 to 2018, at which time she received an annual income of about USD
250,000.00.
16.4. The plaintiff clarifies that she remained on leave from the Government of
India from 2002 to 2011, after which she took voluntary retirement from the
IFS in March, 2011; and during this period she did not receive any salary from
the Government of India.
16.5. The plaintiff further submits that at the time she bought the apartment,
her husband was posted as Ambassador to the Permanent Mission of India at
Geneva since 2002, in which position, he was receiving allowances of about
USD 76,000.00 per annum, in addition to his salary from the Government of
India. It is accordingly stated, that during the period the plaintiff and her
husband were posted in Geneva, their combined annual income was about USD
290,000.00.
16.6. Furthermore, to show the transparent and bona-fide nature of the
transaction, the plaintiff also says that she duly intimated the purchase of the
apartment in Geneva to her parent Ministry viz. the Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India vide letter dated 17.05.2005, as required under the service
rules applicable to her.
16.7. The plaintiff also points-out, that in the affidavits declaring assets and
liabilities filed by the plaintiff 's husband alongwith his nomination papers to
the Rajya Sabha in 2018 and 2020, her husband also duly disclosed the
ownership of the apartment to the concerned authorities.
17. For completeness it may be recorded that by way of application bearing I.A No.
25540/2023, the plaintiff had sought leave to file additional documents; which
application was allowed vide order 19.12.2023; whereby the plaintiff was permitted to
bring on record copies of certain communications exchanged between the plaintiff and
UBS Bank authenticating the loan documents that have been filed by the plaintiff, as
also the plaintiff 's recent communications with the Ministry of External Affairs seeking
documents in relation to the purchase of the apartment in Geneva, Switzerland.
18. It is also relevant to record that in response to letter dated 25.08.2023 sent by the
plaintiff to the Ministry of External Affairs, requesting them to issue a certificate
acknowledging receipt of the Immovable Property Acquisition pro-forma submitted vide
letter dated 17.05.2005 (through which the plaintiff had informed the Ministry about the
purchase of the apartment), the plaintiff has received a response dated 06.09.2023 from
03-06-2025 (Page 8 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan
the Ministry, saying that they have 02 documents available with them : (i) a letter dated
26.04.2005 sent by the plaintiff intimating the Ministry about the purchase of a
residential apartment by her daughter for her in the outskirts of Geneva; and (ii) a letter
dated 12.05.2005 sent by the Ministry requesting the plaintiff to submit the information
in the prescribed pro-forma. Furthermore, the Ministry has informed the plaintiff that
letter dated 17.05.2005 (vide which the Immovable Property Acquisition pro-forma was
submitted) could not be found since the Ministry does not retain records of officers
beyond 05 years of their retirement, the plaintiff having retired in 2011. The foregoing
documents have also been brought on record by the plaintiff by way of application
bearing I.A No. 25540/2023.
19. The plaintiff states that in response to the tweets put-out by defendant No. 1 on
23.06.2021, she responded by putting-out a tweet on 23.06.2021 itself, explaining as
follows :

(extracted from court record)

20. The plaintiff also caused to be issued to defendant No. 1, a lawyer's notice dated
23.06.2021, demanding from him an immediate apology and removal of the offending
tweets, alongwith an undertaking that he would not resort to such slanderous behaviour
in the future. The plaintiff also put the legal notice sent by her on her Twitter-handle,
with the following tweet :

03-06-2025 (Page 9 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

 (extracted from court record)
21. It is submitted however, that defendant No. 1 did not comply with the requisitions
made in the lawyer 's notice; and thereby he refused to make amends for the harm
caused by him to the plaintiff 's good name, which has resulted in irreversible damage
to the plaintiff 's reputation, since the contents of the offending tweets were
subsequently also re-tweeted and commented upon.
22. The plaintiff also exchanged other tweets with defendant No. 1 in relation to her
financial resources and in relation to the declarations made by the plaintiff 's husband,
screenshots of which are also being set-out below for sake of completeness. The
plaintiff asserts that this exchange of tweets shows that defendant No. 1 not only made
comments and allegations in relation to the plaintiff but also questioned the disclosures
and declarations made by the plaintiff 's husband in his disclosure affidavits filed along
with his nomination papers to the Rajya Sabha. The tweets exchanged are the following
:

03-06-2025 (Page 10 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

 (extracted from court record)
23. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that therefore, the target of the offending
tweets was not only the plaintiff but also her husband. If anything, the plaintiff herself
is only a former public servant and it was the plaintiff's husband who was currently
holding public office; and therefore, it is clear that the offending tweets were motivated
03-06-2025 (Page 11 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan
by political considerations.
24. The plaintiff alleges that the offending tweets are false and so to the plaintiff 's
knowledge; that they were put-out by defendant No. 1 deliberately, with the intention of
defaming the plaintiff, and through the plaintiff, also her husband. She further submits
that publication of the offending tweets is malicious and has caused irreversible harm to
the fair name and reputation of the plaintiff and her family.
25. The plaintiff points-out that the serious and irreversible prejudice and damage to
her reputation is apparent from the responses and comments received to the offending
tweets on Twitter, in which she has been ridiculed, abused and jeered. The plaintiff
submits that the offending tweets have been "Liked" by more than 26,270 users and
"Re-tweeted" by more than 8,208 users (as of the time of filing the plaint), which
implies that thousands of users have accepted and endorsed the (false) contents of the
offending tweets.
26. The plaintiff laments that 03 decades of hard-work and dedicated public service
put-in by her has been tarnished by the untruthful and false statements made by
defendant No. 1 in the offending tweets.
27. Most importantly, the plaintiff contends, that defendant No. 1 did not exercise the
required due-diligence and caution before publishing the offending tweets and
proceeded to put-out falsehood in the public domain by referring only to the disclosure
affidavits filed by the plaintiff's husband before the Election Commission of India in
connection with his Rajya Sabha nomination papers. The argument accordingly is, that
had defendant No. 1 exercised due-diligence, he could have sought clarification from
the plaintiff, who would have given full answers to the doubts entertained by defendant
No. 1 in relation to the purchase of the apartment. Instead, it is submitted, that as
recorded by this court vide judgment dated 13.07.2021 disposing-of the interim
application filed in the matter, defendant No. 1 has taken the stand that no law requires
him to exercise due-diligence before posting any content about anyone on social-media
platforms.
28. The plaintiff further asserts that defendant No. 1 's act of "tagging ' the Finance
Minister on his tweets, attempting to justify that he was only trying to bring to the
attention of the Finance Minister a matter that requires investigation, was only an ex-
post facto exercise and does not satisfy the requirement of due-diligence that should
have been exercised by defendant No. 1 prior to putting-out the offending tweets. It is
argued that reasonable verification of facts, as well as prior consent before publication
in specific cases, is imperative.
29. The plaintiff further argues that defendant No. 1 is not even a journalist properly
so-called, since he only puts-out his views and comments on his Twitter-handle but is
not a regular contributor to any print or electronic journalistic publication. In fact, it is
pointed-out that it is public knowledge that subsequent to the publication of the
offending tweets, defendant No. 1 has joined the Trinamool Congress Party, and is now
therefore declaredly, a politician.
30. Another argument put-forth on behalf of the plaintiff is that by inducing the plaintiff
to disclose the money taken by her from her daughter towards purchase of the
apartment, defendant No. 1 has induced the plaintiff to breach her own privacy. In this
behalf learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff draws attention to section 45-S
of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, which provision mandates that any person who
receives a money deposit from another must make a disclosure to that effect but
03-06-2025 (Page 12 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan
exempts an individual accepting a deposit from his or her relative (which includes a
daughter).
31. It is also argued that the "misinformation ' that defendant No. 1 has put-out by way
of the offending tweets is exempt from disclosure even under section 8 of the Right to
Information Act 2005, if a query were to be made under that statute. It is accordingly,
the contention that the plaintiff was constrained to disclose that she had received
money from her daughter to purchase the apartment only because of the falsehood
spread by defendant No. 1; and had that not been the case, no law could have
compelled the plaintiff to make that disclosure since receipt of money by the plaintiff
from her daughter was a strictly private matter between blood relatives and close family
members.
32. In response to the stand taken by defendant No. 1 that no law requires him to
undertake any due-diligence before putting-out the offending tweets, it is submitted on
behalf of the plaintiff that under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines
and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 2, even a social-media intermediary such as
Twitter, is required to perform due-diligence with regard to content that is carried on
their platform, failing which they lose the "safe harbour protection ' available to them
under the law. 3 It is accordingly submitted, that it is imperative on the part of every
person who authors or puts-out content in the public domain via such intermediary, to
conduct requisite due-diligence, which defendant No. 1 has admittedly failed to do.
33. It is also argued on behalf of the plaintiff that having entered appearance in the
present proceedings and having filed his written statement and an affidavit of
admission/denial of documents, defendant No. 1 has thereafter brazenly chosen not to
participate in the proceedings, which amounts to defendant No. 1 having canvassed a
vexatious defence, which must be visited with requisite consequences. Upon being
queried, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff has also urged that since the
contesting defendant has failed to participate in the proceedings, no purpose would be
served by requiring the plaintiff to lead formal ex-parte evidence in the matter, since
there is no-one to cross-examine the plaintiff or any of her witnesses. It has also been
submitted that the documents and material filed by the plaintiff on record, duly
supported by the affidavit filed along with the plaint, as also the affidavit filed under
section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, constitute sufficient material for the court
to proceed to decide the suit on merits, without any further reference to defendant No.
1.
34. In support of her case the plaintiff has relied upon the following judicial precedents
:
34.1. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. L.K. Ratna & Ors.
MANU/SC/0083/1986 : 1986:INSC:215 : (1986) 4 SCC 537, para 18, to submit
that professional reputation is sacrosanct; and is a matter of honour and dignity
of a person.
34.2. R. Rajagopal & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. MANU/SC/0056/1995
: 1994:INSC:455 : (1994) 6 SCC 632, para 26, to submit that reasonable
verification of facts as well as prior consent in specific cases is imperative
before publication. Furthermore, where a party's right to privacy has been
breached, they are entitled to damages.
34.3. Selvi J. Jayalalithaa vs. Penguin Books India MANU/TN/2626/2012, para

03-06-2025 (Page 13 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

 68, to submit that the requirement for reasonable verification has consistently
been held to be necessary.
34.4. S.Ve. Shekher vs. Al. Gopalsamy and other connected matters
MANU/TN/3860/2023, paras 9 to 15, to support the proposition that an
individual with public following must exercise caution before issuing public
statements on social networking sites, since such statements carry immense
impact.
34.5. Arvind Kejriwal vs. State& Anr. MANU/DE/0773/2024, paras 65, 72, 74,
77, 80 & 90, to submit that a public figure must exercise due-diligence and care
in disseminating information on social-media.
34.6. M/s. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. Mastech Corporation& Ors. MANU/TN/0706/1995,
to submit that the law recognizes a situation where a party may be compelled
by another to make a disclosure and breach their own privacy; and that
inducement to breach a contract is in essence pari materia with a case where a
party is compelled to breach their own privacy in order to establish their case.
34.7. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. vs. Gauhati Town Club & Anr.
MANU/DE/3387/2013, paras 7, 8 & 21, M/s.S. Oliver Bernd Freier Gmbh & Co.
KG vs. M/s. Jaikara Apparels & Anr. MANU/DE/1247/2014, para 3 & 5 and
Infiniti Retail Ltd. vs. Croma-Share & Ors. MANU/DE/0435/2024, para 12, to
argue that where a defendant is set ex-parte and the material before the court
is sufficient to allow the plaintiff's claim, judicial time should not be wasted in
leading ex-parte evidence.
34.8. Pramodkumar vs. O.Thomas Printer & Publisher, Deccan Chronicle &
Holdings Ltd. &Ors. MANU/TN/1739/2020, paras 19, 22 & 23, to support the
proposition that if a party enters appearance in a matter but does not lead
evidence, it amounts to presenting a vexatious defence and such party should
be subject to exemplary costs. Furthermore, by not leading evidence, a
defendant does not discharge the onus of establishing their defence.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS
35. Absent any effective participation by defendant No. 1 at the stage of final decision
of the suit, this court has been especially careful to examine the defences raised by the
said defendant in his written statement dated 18.09.2021, and in Affidavit of
Admission/Denial of Documents dated 18.10.2021 filed by defendant No. 1 in relation
to the documents filed by the plaintiff.
3 6 . In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, he has raised the following
preliminary objections :
36.1. Defendant No. 1 says that the subject of the suit also pertains to the
plaintiff 's husband, and therefore the plaintiff 's husband should have been
made party to the suit. 4
36.2. Defendant No. 1 further argues that a prayer seeking relief for the benefit
of a third-party, viz. the prayer in the suit which seeks that damages be
awarded to the plaintiff and be then paid to the PM Cares Fund, is an "improper
prayer".5

03-06-2025 (Page 14 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

 36.3. Defendant No. 1 also claims that the suit is bad in law since it is against
"public interest ' and that the "(p)laintiff has suppressed affidavits revealing
assets filed by her husband which raise pertinent questions."6
3 7 . In his written statement defendant No. 1 has then proceeded to cite his own
credentials as a financial journalist and as a person well-versed with election
procedures. He claims to be an "RTI activist and transparency investigator"; further
disclosing that as on 17.08.2021, he has become a member of the Trinamool Congress
Party.
3 8 . Defendant No. 1 also says in his written statement that the source of his
information, based on which he has put-out the offending tweets, were the disclosure
affidavits filed by the plaintiff 's husband as part of his nomination papers for the Rajya
Sabha. Defendant No. 1 submits that he studied the affidavits filed by the plaintiff 's
husband, whereupon certain points of concern became apparent to him, the details of
which he has set-out in the written statement.
39. In particular, defendant No. 1 claims that the plaintiff 's income as disclosed in her
husband 's disclosure affidavits, neither includes the income she received from the
United Nations nor the pension she receives from the Government of India. 7 Defendant
No. 1 then proceeds to claim that in the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiff 's
husband for the years 2018 and 2020, the plaintiff 's income "...... seems underreported
......".8 Defendant No. 1 also expresses doubt as to the balance payable by the plaintiff
against the loan she took for purchasing the apartment, which he says raises question
about the purchase of the apartment itself.
40. The thrust of defendant No. 1 's response in his written statement is that the stated
sources of the plaintiff 's income do not match her declared income or her assets as
declared in her husband's disclosure affidavits.
41. It is noticed that apart from mere bald denials in his written statement 9, defendant
No. 1 does not dispute or deny that the plaintiff had served in the IFS from 1974 to
2002 and that she took voluntary retirement in 2011. Defendant No. 1 says that the
plaintiff's family background and their claimed service to the nation have no connection,
whether direct or indirect, with the suit. He also says that being a legislator's wife, the
plaintiff 's assets are to "......be declared publicly and can be commented on publicly".10
42. On point of fact, defendant No. 1 admits that he holds the Twitter- handle on which
the offending tweets were put-out. In fact he submits that the number of his followers
on Twitter are "......now slightly higher than reported in the Plaint".11
43. Defendant No. 1 specifically admits that the offending tweets were published by
him on his Twitter-handle. 12 But he denies that he had any ulterior motive in putting-
out the offending tweets; or that he adopts any devious methods or modus-operandi to
tarnish the image of his targets.
44. Notably, defendant No. 1 asserts that he "......crowd funds his public interest work
and has a reputation as an RTI activist with integrity" 13. He denies that he is trying to
increase his followers on his Twitter- handle for receiving funds from donations and
through crowd- funding. He claims that such allegation is wrong and defamatory.
45. Defendant No. 1 denies that he did not try to verify facts from the plaintiff prior to

03-06-2025 (Page 15 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

publishing the tweets on 26.03.2021. 14 He submits that the offending tweets relied-
upon information contained in the election affidavits filed by the plaintiff 's husband,
which are available in the public domain; and that therefore, there was no need for
defendant No. 1 to have verified the facts "...... from the Plaintiff separately before
publishing his tweets as they were based entirely upon the information provided by the
plaintiffs husband under oath"15
46. In his written statement defendant No. 1 then proceeds to assert as follows :
"26. That the contents of Para 14 are denied, except insofar as they are
admitted hereunder. It is true that the Defendant had not contacted the Plaintiff,
but Defendant had done his due-diligence by perusing public record and
obtaining information. It is wrong and denied that the tweet is for some ulterior
motives and designed to achieve some other objective and that therefore such a
minimum obligation was deliberately avoided and omitted by the Defendant as
he would have come to know of the true facts and could not have proceeded
further with putting any allegedly false tweets in the public domain. It is
reiterated that Defendant had relied upon the election affidavit of the husband of
the Plaintiff and other information which is part of public record and, therefore,
it was not necessary for him to contact the Plaintiff for confirming any facts from
her before publishing the said tweets."
(emphasis supplied)
47. Pertinently, defendant No. 1 denies that through the offending tweets he has made
any false, scurrilous, malicious or libelous allegations or insinuation that the plaintiff
alongwith her husband had purchased the apartment in 2006 with "black money". This
portion of the written statement requires specific reference and reads as follows :
"33. That the contents of Para 21 are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied
that the Defendant has in his series of tweets dated 23.06.2021 made a false
and scurrilous/malicious/libellous allegation/insinuation that the Plaintiff along
with her husband have purchased a house in Geneva, Switzerland in the year
2006 with "black money". It is denied that the Defendant has in one of his
tweets referred to swiss bank accounts and foreign black money and tagged the
Union Finance Minister to order a money laundering enquiry by the Enforcement
Directorate on the Plaintiff and her husband. It is wrong and denied that the
Defendant has created an architecture of falsehood through distortion of facts,
baseless assumptions and fabricated information to impute that how could the
Plaintiff and her husband buy a house in Switzerland within their given income
or that he has insinuated a mystery about it or implied that it may have been
acquired from ill-gotten wealth. Defendant had only raised questions on the
basis of publicly available information. The context of the tweets has deliberately
been suppressed by the Plaintiff."
(emphasis supplied)
48. Defendant No. 1 also denies that the offending tweets led to a flurry of vicious and
derogatory responses and tweets from other persons. The relevant portion of the written
statement reads as follows :
"35. That the contents of Para 23 are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied
that the abovementioned and other statements made by the Defendant in his
tweets dated 23.06.2021 are false and factually incorrect, per se defamatory and
03-06-2025 (Page 16 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan
 libellous. It is wrong and denied that the Defendant's tweets led to a flurry of
vicious tweets from other persons using words such as 'big chors' 'crook',
'besharm', 'corrupt', 'kaaladhan', 'thieves' or any other demeaning expletives,
casting aspersions of illegality, impropriety on the Plaintiff and her family or the
organisations they served, be it the Government of India, the UN or any other
organisation. It is wrong and denied that this has hugely impacted public
perception nor can it be confirmed from any tweets mentioned/filed by the
Plaintiff. It is wrong and denied that these tweets that have been filed by the
Plaintiff establish that the present is a clear case of per se defamation resulting
from the false tweets of the Defendant."
(emphasis supplied)
49. In fact, the essence of the defence put-up by defendant No. 1 is contained in the
following portion of his written statement, the relevant extract whereof says :
"36. ...... It is wrong and denied that the defendant's tweets are per se
defamatory or that he has made any false allegations or made them without
seeking comment from the plaintiff.
a) The Plaintiff's income, in light of the expenses at Geneva, and her duration of
income, does not suffice by itself to afford the apartment at Geneva. In any
case, that was not the basis on which the Defendant asked his questions
regarding the Plaintiff.
b ) Plaintiff's husband has suppressed her income in the election affidavit. Her
income as per husband's election affidavit does not reveal the claimed income at
all. Plaintiff's husband has suppressed her income in his affidavit and is manifold
less than her admitted income mentioned hereunder.
c) * * * * *
d-f) It is denied for want of knowledge that the elder daughter of the Plaintiff at
that time had been working as a Senior Vice President with an international
investment bank at New York, USA or that out of the amount of CHF 1.6 million,
a sum of CHF 6,00,000 had become available in two tranches to the Plaintiff
from her daughter. The said loan amount has not been shown as repaid in her
plaint or in her election affidavit.
g ) It is denied for want of knowledge that the purchase of the Apartment was
duly intimated by the Plaintiff to the Ministry of External Affairs vide letter dated
17th May 2005.
h) * * * * *
(emphasis supplied)
5 0 . In his Affidavit of Admission/Denial of Documents dated 18.10.2021 filed by
defendant No. 1, he again admits to the 'correctness' and 'existence' of the screenshots
of tweets dated 13.06.2021 and 23.06.2021 that are subject matter of the present suit;
however, he denies the "interpretation' thereof. Defendant No. 1 however denies the
'correctness' or 'existence' of the screenshots of the tweets made in comment or
response to the offending tweets, for lack of personal knowledge.
51. Defendant No. 1 also denies the documents filed by the plaintiff in support of the

03-06-2025 (Page 17 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

loan/mortgage taken by her from UBS Bank and the money taken from her elder
daughter towards purchase of the apartment, again for lack of personal knowledge.
Defendant No. 1 also denies letter dated 17.05.2005, whereby the plaintiff claims that
she had intimated the purchase of the apartment to the Ministry of External Affairs, for
lack of personal knowledge.
52. Obviously, defendant No. 1 admits the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiff 's
husband in 2018 and 2020 along with his nomination papers to the Rajya Sabha.
5 3 . However, as noted above, after filing his written statement and his affidavit of
admission/denial of documents, defendant No. 1 thereafter stopped appearing or being
represented in the present suit. As recorded in order dated 23.08.2023, learned counsel
for defendant No. 1 subsequently sought discharge from the matter on the ground that
he was not receiving any instructions from defendant No. 1; and counsel was
accordingly discharged. Thereupon court notice was issued to defendant No. 1; which
was duly served upon him, which fact has been recorded by the learned Joint Registrar
vide order dated 25.09.2023.
54. Upon his failure to be represented in the matter despite service of court notice, vide
order dated 19.12.2023 defendant No. 1 was set ex- parte.
55. Thereafter there have been about 09 hearings in the case, including several final
hearings, when extensive submissions were heard by this court on behalf of the
plaintiff; but defendant No. 1 has failed to appear or to be represented in the matter.
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
56. At the outset it must be observed, that this matter has proceeded in a somewhat
unusual manner. Defendant No. 1 was duly served in the matter. He entered appearance
through counsel. He filed his written statement and affidavit of admission/denial of
documents. Thereafter however, it would appear, he stopped giving instructions to his
counsel; and counsel therefore sought discharge from the matter. Subsequently
defendant No. 1 chose simply not to appear or be represented in the matter, as if he did
not care about the outcome of the proceedings at all.
5 7 . On the other hand, the plaintiff has assiduously pursued the matter, displaying
seriousness of purpose in relation to the claim that she has made.
5 8 . In support of the averments contained in the plaint and the documents filed
therewith, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit accompanying the plaint. She has also duly
filed an affidavit as required under section 65B of the Evidence Act in support of the
electronic evidence tendered in the matter. The case in fact turns almost entirely upon
electronic evidence, that is to say the tweets put-out by defendant No. 1, which the
plaintiff finds offensive; and the tweets/re-tweets made by third-parties as comments in
response to the offending tweets put-out by defendant No. 1. In the affidavit filed by
the plaintiff in support of the electronic record tendered by her in evidence, she deposes
to the veracity of the offending tweets as well as the adverse tweets received in
response.
59. On the other hand however, having filed certain documents in support of his written
statement, defendant No. 1 has omitted to participate in the proceedings and has not
cross-examined the plaintiff in relation to her averments, allegations and documents.
6 0 . In the affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by defendant No. 1, he

03-06-2025 (Page 18 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

denies any personal knowledge of the academic and professional achievements of the
plaintiff; he denies any personal knowledge of the plaintiff 's family background; he
denies any personal knowledge of the comments and responses received from a large
number of Twitter users to the offending tweets, saying that he is not party to such
comments; he denies the documents relating to the loan/mortgage from UBS Bank and
the money received by the plaintiff from her daughter for purchase of the apartment, as
also the intimation letter addressed by the plaintiff informing the Ministry about the
purchase of the apartment, again for lack of personal knowledge.
61. Defendant No. 1 however admits the existence of the disclosure affidavits filed by
the plaintiff 's husband as part of his Rajya Sabha nomination papers but disputes the
interpretation of what is stated in such affidavits; he admits the existence of the
offending tweets but disputes the interpretation of the contents thereof, saying that they
are not per-se defamatory. Defendant No. 1 also admits receipt of the legal notice
issued by the plaintiff to him, calling upon him to make amends for putting-out false
and defamatory tweets against the plaintiff but denies its interpretation.
62. That being so, and considering that the main contesting defendant viz. defendant
No. 1 has been set ex-parte, this court sees no reason to call upon the plaintiff to file
any further affidavit in support of the plaint or of the documents filed therewith; or to
insist that she lead ex-parte evidence in the matter.
63. In the opinion of this court, calling for yet another affidavit from the plaintiff in
support of her case and of the documents filed by her, would only amount to needless
repetition of paperwork, which is wholly uncalled for in a case where the contesting
defendant has let the matter proceed in default, deliberately as it were. If the plaintiff
were called upon to file a formal affidavit-in-evidence, she would substantially only
repeat what she has already stated in her plaint and in the affidavit filed in support
thereof; and, moreover, there would be no one to cross-examine the plaintiff on such
affidavit-in-evidence.
6 4 . To be sure, defendant No. 1 has asserted and placed on record his defence in
writing by way of his written statement, which is duly supported by his affidavit.
Defendant No. 1 has also filed an affidavit towards admission/denial of the plaintiff 's
documents. Insofar as the documents filed by defendant No. 1 are concerned, all those
documents (except the disclosure affidavits of the plaintiff 's husband) are denied by
the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 has not participated in the proceedings to prove such
documents. In any event, in the opinion of this court, the documents filed or relied
upon by defendant No. 1 do not persuade the court to change its decision in the present
case.
65. In the circumstances, this court records that there is sufficient material before the
court to proceed to decide the case on merits, without calling upon the plaintiff to lead
ex-parte evidence, since that would be a mere superfluity. In doing so this court also
derives support from the view taken by our Co-ordinate Benches in Indian Performing
Right Society Ltd. (supra), M/s. S. Oliver Bernd Freier Gmbh (supra) and Infiniti Retail
Ltd. (supra) cited by the plaintiff.
66. Upon a conspectus of the above, this court is persuaded to hold that the plaintiff
has successfully discharged the burden upon her for proving the documents that she
has filed and relied-upon; and accepts the veracity of such documents. On the other
hand, defendant No. 1 has failed to discharge the subsequent onus upon him to
disprove or belie the same.

03-06-2025 (Page 19 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

67. A brief dissection of the offending tweets is required at this point :
67.1. The first two tweets put-out by defendant No. 1 on 13.06.2021 referred
to an ex-Indian civil servant who was with the Bhartiya Janata Party, which was
a clear reference to the plaintiff 's husband.
67.2. The tweets dated 13.06.2021 said that the plaintiff 's husband had
bought an house overseas worth $2 million, which would be equivalent to over
Rs. 10 crores (at the relevant time), with a value of about Rs. 25 crores today.
The 02 tweets further went on to say that (at the relevant time) the plaintiff 's
husband had no income other than a government salary (to be able to purchase
the property). The tweets also called upon the Finance Minister to promise an
unbiased probe and that if such probe was assured " all papers/documents will
be furnished".
67.3. While putting-out the 02 tweets on 13.06.2021, defendant No. 1 made no
reference to the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiff 's husband; nor did
defendant No. 1 give any details of the exact cost of the apartment or the
manner in which it was funded. However, he did pose a question as to whether
the Enforcement Directorate would investigate the matter.
67.4. Thereafter defendant No. 1 did not put out any tweets for the next 10
days.
67.5. The clear insinuation in the first 02 tweets dated 13.06.2021 was that the
plaintiff 's husband had come to own property abroad without having salary or
income enough to do so, suggesting that this requires a probe by the
Enforcement Directorate.
67.6. Defendant No. 1 maintained studied silence as to the source of his
information, making no reference to the disclosure affidavits filed by the
plaintiff 's husband or to the disclosures made by the plaintiff herself to her
Ministry. But he clearly alleged wrongdoing on the part of the plaintiff 's
husband.
68. The second set of 10 tweets were put-out by defendant No. 1 on 23.06.2021, the
contents of which may be summarised as follows :
68.1. Defendant No. 1 now brought the plaintiff into the picture by naming her.
He also named the plaintiff 's husband. He said that there was "...... a great
mystery about them which revolves around $2.5 million house in Switzerland".
68.2. Defendant No. 1 then gave some details about the plaintiff 's job at the
UNCTAD in Geneva. He now clarified that the house in Switzerland was
purchased by the plaintiff (not by her husband). He indicated the price of
purchase as CHF 1.6 million. He referenced the pay-band/pay-scale that the
plaintiff and her husband were drawing in 2006; and expressed that the
purchase of the house was something of interest.
68.3. Defendant No. 1 then proceeded to refer to the disclosure affidavit filed
by the plaintiff 's husband in 2017 (reference perhaps being to the affidavit
filed in 2018 or 2020); and posted a screenshot of the affidavit, showing
disclosure made by the plaintiff 's husband about ownership of the "apartment '
(and not a "house ' as incorrectly claimed by defendant No. 1) alongwith the

03-06-2025 (Page 20 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

 date and cost of purchase and the mortgage from UBS Bank.
68.4. Defendant No. 1 thereafter presented his own inferences as to the down-
payment required against the loan taken for purchase of the property. He cast a
doubt as to why the plaintiff's husband had not disclosed the current value of
the apartment, which, defendant No. 1 said he found "strange". He attempted to
explain that a mortgage is never given for the entire cost of purchase and that
the plaintiff and her husband did not have sufficient annual household income
to afford the apartment.
68.5. Defendant No. 1 followed this with a series of questions in his tweets,
including as to how the plaintiff and her husband had enough savings to buy
the apartment and to make the down- payment.
68.6. Defendant No. 1 then closed his tweets by drawing attention to the fact
that the Prime Minister had promised to " bring back foreign black money......";
and again questioned whether the Finance Minister would order an enquiry by
the Enforcement Directorate into how the plaintiff and her husband had enough
money to buy the apartment abroad.
69. Based on the above-referred documents, the plaintiff 's case against the offending
tweets is really quite simple.
70. The plaintiff alleges that the contents of the offending tweets put-out by defendant
No. 1 are false. She says that defendant No. 1 did not make any effort to verify the
factual position in relation to the contents of the offending tweets before publishing
them. The plaintiff further asserts that through the contents and the tone and tenor of
the offending tweets, defendant No. 1 has clearly insinuated that the plaintiff bought an
apartment in Geneva, Switzerland through funds, the provenance of which is
questionable. Defendant No. 1 has also said that at the relevant time the plaintiff and
her husband did not have the financial means to have purchased the apartment. The
plaintiff alleges that the aim of defendant No. 1 was to spread malicious falsehood, not
only against the plaintiff, but perhaps more importantly, against the plaintiff 's husband
who currently holds a ministerial post in the Central Government. The plaintiff asserts
that the source of the funds used by her to buy the apartment are legitimate and
accounted-for; and more specifically, that she had fully disclosed the acquisition of the
apartment, including the source of funds, to her parent Ministry viz. the Ministry of
External Affairs at the relevant time. She also contends that the plaintiff 's husband has
also duly disclosed the purchase of the apartment, including the mortgage existing
thereon, in the two disclosure affidavits filed by him as part of his nomination papers to
the Rajya Sabha.
7 1 . Most importantly, the plaintiff explains that the financing of the apartment was
quite straightforward. The total cost of purchase of the apartment was Swiss Francs i.e.
CHF 1.6 million; of which, the plaintiff obtained CHF 1.0 million as loan from UBS Bank,
Geneva, Switzerland against mortgage of the apartment; and the remaining CHF 0.6
million was contributed by her elder daughter in 02 tranches on 09.12.2004 and
11.03.2005. The plaintiff has filed as Document No. 7 alongwith the plaint, a copy of
the UBS Fixed-Rate Mortgage dated 30.03.2005 for CHF 500,000/- and another contract
for the UBS Libor Mortgage dated 30.03.2005 for another sum of CHF 500,000/- in her
favour, to evidence that the sum of CHF 1.0 million was borrowed from UBS for
purchase of the apartment. The plaintiff has also relied upon Document No. 6 filed by
her, which are copies of Credit Advice dated 09.12.2004 for CHF 199,344/- and Credit

03-06-2025 (Page 21 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

Advice dated 11.03.2005 for CHF 506,000/- whereby the plaintiff received remittances
from her daughter of certain sums of money through J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., New
York, USA. It is pointed-out that the daughter 's name has been redacted from the
documents for protecting the latter 's privacy. The plaintiff has also clarified that the
monies received from the daughter were somewhat in excess of the CHF 0.6 million
required towards the balance price of the apartment, since other processing charges and
closing costs also had to be paid for completing the purchase.
7 2 . Furthermore, the plaintiff has placed on record as Document No. 8, a copy of
communication dated 17.05.2005, by which the plaintiff had informed the Ministry of
External Affairs that she had purchased the apartment, enclosing therewith the requisite
form as prescribed under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Notably the
intimation sent by the plaintiff to her Ministry regarding acquisition of immovable
property also sets-out the sources from which the purchase was financed, namely
through a mortgage and through equity provided by her elder daughter.
73. The plaintiff has also placed on record as Document No. 9 and Document No. 10,
the disclosure affidavits filed by her husband disclosing the assets held by him and by
his spouse as part of his nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha in 2018 and 2020,
which also disclose both the ownership of the apartment and the existence of a
mortgage with UBS.
7 4 . Pertinently, the purported discrepancies cited by defendant No. 1 in his written
statement relate to the income disclosed by the plaintiff 's husband for the years 2016-
2017 and 2019-2020 in the disclosure affidavits filed by him in 2018 and 2020.
However, once the source of funds applied for buying the apartment in 2005 stands
duly disclosed by the plaintiff as well as her husband, their income for any given year,
is of no relevance.
7 5 . The legal landscape relevant for purposes of the present matter, is succinctly
captured in the following judicial precedents :
75.1. In its celebrated decision in R. Rajagopal (supra) the Supreme Court has
laid-down the contours and conditions of the permissible challenge that may be
brought by a "public official ' for publication of defamatory content, arising
from breach of privacy relating to the discharge of their public duties. Though
the plaintiff in the present case is no longer a public official, as observed
above, defendant No. 1 has cleverly made insinuations in the offending tweets
not only to the plaintiff but also to her husband who is a public official. For this
reason, the decision in R. Rajagopal is relevant. Furthermore, in R. Rajagopal
the Supreme Court has also enunciated the aspect of a publication being made
in reckless disregard of truth, which is a ground for action even by a public
official, and therefore much more so by a person who has ceased to be a public
official. The following portions of R. Rajagopal may be noticed:
"8. On the pleadings in this petition, following questions arise:
(1) Whether a citizen of this country can prevent another
person from writing his life story or biography ' Does such
unauthorised writing infringe the citizen's right to privacy '
Whether the freedom of press guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a)
entitles the press to publish such unauthorised account of a
citizen's life and activities and if so to what extent and in what
circumstances ' What are the remedies open to a citizen of this
03-06-2025 (Page 22 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan
 country in case of infringement of his right to privacy and
further in case such writing amounts to defamation '
*****
"26. We may now summarise the broad principles flowing from
the above discussion:
(1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty
guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a
"right to be let alone". A citizen has a right to safeguard
the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation,
motherhood, child-bearing and education among other
matters. None can publish anything concerning the above
matters without his consent - whether truthful or otherwise
and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would
be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and
would be liable in an action for damages. Position may,
however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself
into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.
(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any
publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes
unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public
records including court records. This is for the reason that
once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to
privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject
for comment by press and media among others. We are,
however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency [Article
19(2)] an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a
female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction
or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity
of her name and the incident being publicised in press/media.
(3) There is yet another exception to the rule in (1) above -
indeed, this is not an exception but an independent rule. In the
case of public officials, it is obvious, right to privacy, or
for that matter, the remedy of action for damages is
simply not available with respect to their acts and
conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties.
This is so even where the publication is based upon facts
and statements which are not true, unless the official
establishes that the publication was made (by the defendant)
with reckless disregard for truth. In such a case, it would
be enough for the defendant (member of the press or media) to
prove that he acted after a reasonable verification of the facts;
it is not necessary for him to prove that what he has written is
true. Of course, where the publication is proved to be
false and actuated by malice or personal animosity, the
defendant would have no defence and would be liable
for damages. It is equally obvious that in matters not relevant
to the discharge of his duties, the public official enjoys the
same protection as any other citizen, as explained in (1) and

03-06-2025 (Page 23 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

 (2) above. It needs no reiteration that judiciary, which is
protected by the power to punish for contempt of court and
Parliament and legislatures protected as their privileges are by
Articles 105 and 104 respectively of the Constitution of India,
represent exceptions to this rule."
(emphasis supplied)
75.2. Then again, in Selvi J. Jayalalithaa (supra), the Madras High Court has
stressed the need for reasonable verification before publication of matter
concerning the privacy of public personalities, explaining that :
"55. The aforesaid dictums laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
this Court would be that a reasonable verification of the contents
would be sufficient in respect of public personalities are
concerned. The said dictum has been laid down in respect of an article
written in a magazine about a public personality. Now, we have to see
whether such reasonable verification has been done by the Third
Defendant is the crucial point.
*****
"63. On a careful understanding of the aforesaid dictum, I could see
that the right of privacy of an individual is guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is a right to be let
alone. As regards the particulars of marriage, family, procreation,
motherhood, child bearing, education and other matters, anything
published concerning the above matters without his or her consent
whether truthful or otherwise whether laudatory or critical, it would be
violating the right of privacy of a person concerned. As far as a public
personality is concerned, the right of privacy is equivalent to
that of an individual when it is not associated with the public
life. Therefore, a thin difference has been put forth regarding
the private life of a public official and the public duties of the
public official. Even a public official's private life is touched by
publishing the information regarding those private matters
without consent and verification, it would be an invasion of
private life or privacy. Once it has been published without such
consent or verification, the remedy would be the damages.... ...
'
(emphasis supplied)
75.3. On whether a distinction needs to be drawn when a message is put-out
by a person who has followers as compared to an ordinary person, the
following observations of the Madras High Court in S.Ve. Shekher (supra) are
relevant :
"12. The stature of a person is directly proportional to what he
communicates to the society and its consequences. Therefore, an
information or a message sent by a normal citizen and the
same information/message sent by a person with a stature
having followers has a lot of difference. In the former, such
message or information may not have an impact on the society.

03-06-2025 (Page 24 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

 However, when it comes from a person with stature, its repercussions
will be higher. In view of the same, such a person carries a lot of
responsibility in what he says and does considering the impact
it will have on the society or a particular group of persons, as
the case may be.
"13. Hence, a case of this nature cannot be decided by applying the
same yardstick to everyone. The more a person is popular in the
society, he also carries more responsibility in what he conveys
to the society. The petitioner, in the instant case, falls under the
category of a person of high stature with many followers and he ought
to have exercised more caution before forwarding the message from his
facebook account. If such a caution has been thrown to the
winds and as a result, it has had a very serious impact, the
petitioner has to necessarily face it and cannot try to run away
from the consequences by merely tendering an unconditional
apology.
"14. A message that is sent or forwarded in the social- media is
like an arrow, which has already been shot from the bow. Till
that message remains with the sender, it is within his control.
Once it is sent, it is like the arrow, which has already been
shot and the sender of the message must take the ownership
for the consequences of the damage done by that arrow
(message). Once the damage is done, it will become very
difficult to wriggle out of the same by issuing an apology
statement."
(emphasis supplied)
76. Now, on a plain and objective reading of the offending tweets, what defendant No.
1 has stated and/or insinuated thereby is this :
76.1. That the plaintiff had purchased the apartment through ill- begotten
money, since the plaintiff and her husband did not have sufficient income at the
relevant time to buy the apartment.
76.2. That the financial inability of the plaintiff to purchase the apartment is
evident from the disclosures contained in the disclosure affidavits filed by the
plaintiff 's husband in 2018 and 2020 as part of the latter's nomination papers
to the Rajya Sabha.
76.3. That action ought to be initiated by the concerned investigating agency
against the plaintiff and her husband in-line with governmental policy to bring
back ill-begotten wealth stashed abroad, as per the policy announced by the
Prime Minister; which however defendant No. 1 says will not happen, since the
plaintiff's husband holds a ministerial post in the Central Government.
77. Now, by way of the documents filed in support of the plaint, the plaintiff has clearly
and cogently explained the source of funds that she had used to purchase the
apartment. The cost of purchase of the apartment and the quantum of funds available to
the plaintiff from the sources explained by her, add-up neatly. There remains no doubt
as to how the plaintiff funded the purchase of the apartment. What adds further
credibility to the plaintiff 's explanation is the fact that, at the relevant time, that is in
03-06-2025 (Page 25 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan
2005 itself, the plaintiff had also intimated to her parent Ministry that she had
purchased the apartment, also disclosing the source of the funds used for the purpose.
It adds further credence to the plaintiff 's version when it is noticed that part of the
funds for purchase of the apartment came by way of a loan from a well-known, well-
established and old banking institution, namely UBS; and the remaining funds came
through regular banking channels from the plaintiff's own daughter.
78. The fact that UBS loaned money to the plaintiff to purchase the apartment is also
well within the realm of acceptance, inasmuch as, at the relevant time, the plaintiff and
her husband were both well-placed and serving in Geneva, Switzerland with secure,
foreign currency salaries/allowances. In any event, defendant No. 1 has also not
disputed the loan taken by the plaintiff from UBS.
79. In the opinion of this court, the evidence adduced by defendant No. 1 by way of
documents filed alongwith his written statement, do not dislodge or belie the
documents filed by the plaintiff in support of her case. Therefore, defendant No. 1 's
allegations against the plaintiff do not sustain on point of fact.
80. In light of the plaintiff 's answers as regards the source of funds that she used to
purchase the apartment, this court is satisfied that what has been stated by defendant
No. 1 in the offending tweets is evidently incorrect, false and untrue. Furthermore, the
record also shows, that despite the plaintiff having issued to defendant No. 1 a lawyer 's
notice, calling upon him to withdraw the tweets and remove the false information that
he had put in the public domain, defendant No. 1 refused to do so and persisted in
reiterating the false allegations contained in the offending tweets.
8 1 . All financial matters are, in the first instance, confidential and an individual is
entitled to keep one 's financial dealings and affairs private and out of the public
domain, unless otherwise required by law (such as disclosures required in tax filings
etc.). To be sure, the other aspect of the matter is that a public official, or a person
aspiring for or holding public office, may not be entitled to the same level of
confidentiality and privacy in relation to one 's financial affairs as an ordinary person.
82. In the present case, the plaintiff is a long retired civil servant, who is currently not
engaged in any governmental or public function; and the financial transaction that was
subject-matter of the offending tweets dates back to 2005. One is therefore unable to
see, on first blush, as to why defendant No. 1 was at all interested in a transaction that
is so far remote and antiquated, that it would be of no interest to anyone at this time.
Why then, did defendant No. 1 rake-up this issue at such a late stage. The answer is
obvious. That defendant No. 1 was interested, not in the financial affairs of the plaintiff,
but of the plaintiff's husband who even today holds a ministerial post in the Central
Government.
8 3 . A chronological reading of the offending tweets suggests, that to begin with,
defendant No. 1 may not even have known in whose name the apartment was held; and
discovered only subsequently from the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiff 's
husband that the apartment was owned by the plaintiff and had been funded, atleast in
part, against a mortgage obtained from UBS Bank. Since persons seeking election to
Parliament are required to disclose not just their own assets and liabilities, but also
those of their spouse, there was perhaps nothing amiss in defendant No. 1 being
curious as to the acquisition of the apartment by the plaintiff. That being said however,
the very least defendant No. 1 was required to do was to make further enquiries,
whether through direct queries addressed to the plaintiff or to her husband, or through

03-06-2025 (Page 26 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

queries made to competent authorities, to find out as to how the plaintiff had funded
the purchase of the apartment. However, defendant No. 1 did none of this; and
straightaway fired a salvo of tweets, making evident insinuations that the plaintiff (and
her husband) had funded the apartment through illicit means.
84. In the present case, the plaintiff has without any doubt, served in some of the
highest positions in the civil services being an officer of the Indian Foreign Service,
including as an Ambassador of India to more than one country and as an international
civil servant working for the United Nations. So has her husband. As noted above, after
having sought voluntary retirement from the Indian Foreign Service some 13 years ago
in 2011, the plaintiff has not held any public office in India. Furthermore, the record
shows that there was neither anything suspect nor dishonourable in the plaintiff having
acquired the apartment in Geneva, Switzerland in 2005; nor was there the plaintiff
remiss in disclosing to the concerned authorities the purchase of the apartment along
with the source of funds. The record also shows, that the doubt entertained by
defendant No. 1 in relation to the purchase of the apartment, if it could be called that,
arose in his mind from the disclosures contained in the affidavits filed by the plaintiff 's
husband as part of his nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha. What defendant No. 1
ought to have seen straightaway is that the purchase of the apartment and the mortgage
thereon from a well-established international banking institution were duly disclosed in
those affidavits. If, as defendant No. 1 says, the disclosure did not give full account of
the source of funds, defendant No. 1 could have posed that query to the plaintiff or to
her husband or to some official agency, to elicit an answer. However, he chose not to
do so. Instead, through the offending tweets, he went on a tirade alleging and
insinuating that the plaintiff and her husband had acquired the apartment through ill-
begotten wealth.
85. Financial integrity and probity is a sine-qua-non for holding any public office. Very
few allegations can hurt a person associated with public office more than an allegation
of financial impropriety. It is also nearly impossible to dispel misinformation in relation
to such matters, once it is disseminated to the public at large.
8 6 . From the above run of events, this court also gets the clear impression that
defendant No. 1 was making roving allegations against the plaintiff and her husband.
What is quite evident is that defendant No. 1 was actually targeting the plaintiff's
husband, who was (and is even today) a serving Minister under the Central
Government, since it otherwise defies reason as to why defendant No. 1 would target
the plaintiff who had retired from foreign service back in 2011. However, without
having any clarity, or by deliberately obfuscating matters, defendant No. 1 dragged both
the plaintiff and her husband through controversy insinuating financial impropriety in
the purchase of the apartment.
87. All this creates serious doubt as to the motive and intention of defendant No. 1 in
putting-out the offending tweets. If defendant No. 1 's intention was only to put a bona-
fide question to the plaintiff or even to the plaintiff's husband, that may not itself have
been objectionable provided defendant No. 1 had posed the question as a query and
had waited for an answer before putting-out anything further in the public domain.
8 8 . This court would hasten to observe that being the spouse of a person holding
public office, the plaintiff 's financial affairs are also open to public scrutiny. 16
However, it is necessary to draw a distinction between a person 's financial affairs being
open to public scrutiny, by requiring disclosure or clarification through legitimate
means, which may not amount to defamation; and a person being subjected to
03-06-2025 (Page 27 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan
vilification and to baseless and false ignominy, by asking tendentious questions laced
with innuendo. However, even before posing the question with any seriousness, and
without inviting any response from the plaintiff, in his very first tweet, defendant No. 1
added the insinuation that the plaintiff had purchased the apartment with ill- begotten
wealth which warrants investigation by the Enforcement Directorate. Defendant No. 1
had also expressly imputed that the plaintiff and her husband did not have the financial
resources to purchase the apartment. Defendant No. 1 had further gone-on to say in the
initial offending tweets that action was called-for against the plaintiff and her husband
by investigating agencies, in-line with the Government of India's stated policy to bring
back ill-begotten wealth that was stashed away abroad.
89. But was there any basis for defendant No. 1 to jump to the conclusion that the
plaintiff or husband had accumulated ill-begotten wealth ' Or that the plaintiff or her
husband had purchased the apartment from undisclosed or unexplained sources of
funds ' The answer is a clear 'No'.
90. Defendant No. 1 made these insinuations without even making basic enquiry from
the plaintiff or her husband or from any other official source. In para 26 of his written
statement, defendant No. 1 answers this to say that he had done his due-diligence by
relying upon the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiff's husband, which were part of
the public record; and that therefore it was not necessary for him to contact the
plaintiff. In fact, as recorded in order dated 08.07.2021 learned counsel for defendant
No. 1 had argued that there is no law that required defendant No. 1 to seek any
clarification either from the plaintiff or from any competent public authority before
putting-out the offending tweets. In the opinion of this court, this stand taken by
defendant No. 1 reflects brazen callousness, which cannot be countenanced in law. In
the opinion of this court, this is mea-culpa as to defendant No. 1 's reckless disregard
for truth and flies in the face of the legal position set-out by the Supreme Court in para
26(3) of R. Rajagopal (supra). Defendant No. 1 himself says that his verification of
facts, as it were, was limited to perusing the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiff 's
husband. This court is of the view, that that did not amount to reasonable verification at
all; and this court is therefore satisfied that the offending tweets have been proved to
be false and actuated by malice in terms of what has been referred to in paragraph
26(3) of R. Rajagopal.
9 1 . Furthermore, there is no gainsaying the fact that as defendant No. 1 himself
proudly proclaims, he has a very large following on the social-media platform Twitter
and therefore whatever he says on that platform has immense reach and therefore great
impact. This imposes upon defendant No. 1 additional responsibility, in terms of what
has been held in S. Ve. Shekher (supra). It was therefore extremely irresponsible of
defendant No. 1 to have put-out derogatory content by way of the offending tweets,
without due verification, thereby conveying to his entire band of followers on Twitter
allegations in relation to the plaintiff 's financial affairs, which are rank untrue.
92. The impact of the offending tweets and the fact that they evoked derogatory and
offensive responses is evident from a reading of the comments received in response to
the offending tweets, screenshots of which have been placed by the plaintiff on record
alongwith her plaint, in support of which the plaintiff has also filed an affidavit. The
plaintiff has also filed a specific affidavit under section 65B of the Evidence Act in
support of the response tweets/comments. Though defendant No. 1 has not "admitted '
the comments received to the offending tweets; and in his affidavit of admission/denial
of documents he disputes the comments stating that he "... ...lacks any personal
knowledge thereof and the Defendant is not a party... ..." to those documents, such
03-06-2025 (Page 28 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan
refutation cuts no ice since defendant No. 1 has chosen not to participate in the
proceedings and has not cross- examined the plaintiff on those comments. The
comments received in response to the offending tweets are not being repeated here to
avoid further embarrassment to the plaintiff and her husband. It is evident that these
responses were a direct and immediate consequence of the offending tweets put-out by
defendant No. 1 and were based on his followers believing and accepting the contents
of the offending tweets as true.
93. Regrettably, messages on social-media generate a social-media chain reaction as it
were, which is no less dangerous in today 's milieu than a nuclear reaction gone out of
control.
94. One notable feature of this case however, is that the plaintiff 's husband has not
approached the court. He has not joined as a co- plaintiff. Accordingly, no finding can
be returned in respect of the plaintiff's husband.
9 5 . It is accordingly held that the offending tweets are per-se defamatory; that the
plaintiff has suffered undeserved legal injury to her reputation, which warrants
redressal.
96. The next question therefore is, how the injury caused to the plaintiff 's reputation
should be appropriately ameliorated.
97. Several aspects have been highlighted by the courts as relevant factors based on
which a party's reputation can be vindicated. In particular, this court has referenced the
judicial verdicts in Rustom K. Karanjia & Anr vs. Krishnaraj M.D. Thackersey & Ors.
MANU/MH/0073/1970, Umar Abid Khan & Ors. vs. Vincy Gonsalves alias Vincent
Gonsalves & Ors. MANU/MH/1299/2009 and the celebrated text of McGregor on
Damages. 17 Of the considerations and factors cited in the aforementioned judgments
and commentary, in the opinion of this court, the following are the most relevant in the
context of the present matter :
97.1. The extent and nature of the plaintiff's reputation; the plaintiff 's role in
society and the affect of the defamatory statement upon that role.
97.2. The seriousness of the allegation, including its likely "sticking power"
and "grapevine effect". Dhir vs. Saddler, MANU/UKWQ/0200/2017 : (2017)
EWHC 3155 (QB) at paras 103, 108 & 110
97.3. The effect of the publication including the propensity of the statement to
"percolate through underground channels and contaminate hidden springs"
Suttle vs. Walker, (2019) EWHC 396 (QB) at para 21 and including the loss of
social standing, psychological distress and future treatment by others, including
"the insult offered or the pain of a false accusation."Lay vs. Hamilton, (1935)
153 L.T. 384 HL at para 386
97.4. The extent, influence and circulation of the publication, including the
identity and associated authority of the publisher of the statement, and the
credibility afforded to the publication.
97.5. The conduct of the defendant, including the defendant's conduct after
publication and during the course of court proceedings Praed vs. Graham,
(1890) Q.B.D. 53 CA at page 55 and whether the defendant has acted with or
without malice.
03-06-2025 (Page 29 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan
 97.6. The conduct of the plaintiff.
97.7. The compensatory effect of damages; as also effectiveness in acting as
deterrent. Gleaner Co Ltd. vs. Abrahams, (2004) 1 A.C. 628 PC at para 53
98. Assessing the present case in light of the factors enumerated above, in the opinion
of this court, there is no doubt that the plaintiff enjoys high reputation in society. She
has performed important roles as Ambassador of India to various countries and as a
high official at the United Nations; and has earned for herself a notable position in the
social order. Though today she may not be performing any "public function ' or formal
role in public life, persons of the plaintiff 's stature and achievement are held in high
esteem as public intellectuals who have served the nation and as role-models for others
who may wish to emulate them. The contents of the offending tweets have diminished
and harmed that position, which the plaintiff has earned for herself in society.
99. Furthermore, as observed above, allegations of financial impropriety dent the very
foundations of a person 's reputation. This is even more- so if the person has occupied,
or is closely associated with another person who occupies, high public office.
Allegations of financial impropriety tend to "stick ' and have the propensity to spread
widely through the "grapevine '. Even rumor about financial improbity taints a person 's
good name. In the present case, the false contents of the offending tweets would,
without a shred of doubt, have found their way into the official ecosystem in which the
plaintiff moves about, and in which her husband functions. People who matter are likely
to have formed opinions in relation to the plaintiff (and her husband) based on what
was contained in the offending tweets. Needless to add, that the loss of esteem suffered
by the plaintiff, even if based on utter falsehood, would have resulted inevitably in loss
of social standing, accompanied by psychological distress, aggravated by the pain of
false accusation.
100. What makes it worse is that the pernicious and anarchic nature of social-media, in
this case Twitter, with its propensity to disseminate content (including misinformation)
widely and indiscriminately, would certainly have resulted in very wide circulation of the
offending tweets. Defendant No. 1 claims to be a popular RTI Activist and is now also a
Member of a political party. The offending tweets have therefore no doubt been
circulated in various political, official and non-official circles. Defendant No. 1 's
conduct after the offending tweets were put-out, and after he was cautioned of the
falsity of their content, has been less than responsible or remorseful. Instead defendant
No. 1 has chosen to persist in his stand. The indifference displayed by defendant No. 1
in the course of the present proceedings, is self-evident.
101. As a sequitur to the above, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and
against defendant No. 1.
102. Now therefore, what is the recompense that can be offered to the plaintiff '
103. The bell can 't be un-rung. The damage caused to the plaintiff 's reputation by the
offending tweets cannot be effaced completely. An express, unreserved and
unconditional apology is the very least that is required from defendant No. 1 for having
put-out the offending tweets.
1 0 4 . Accordingly, the very first thing that defendant No. 1 is directed to do is to
publish an apology in the following terms on his own Twitter- handle from which he
had put-out the offending tweets, as also prominently in the Times of India newspaper
(Delhi Edition, size : 6 cm x 7 cm on page 3) stating the following :
03-06-2025 (Page 30 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan
 "Apology
I unconditionally apologise for having put-out a series of tweets against Amb.
Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri on 13th & 23rd June 2021, which tweets contained
wrong and unverified allegations in relation to the purchase of property by
Amb. Puri abroad, which I sincerely regret.
- Saket Gokhale"
Let requisite compliance be made within 04 (four) weeks. The apology so tweeted shall
be retained on defendant No. 1 's Twitter- handle for a period of 06 (six) months from
the date it is put-out.
105. Issue No. 2 stands answered accordingly.
106. Furthermore, defendant No. 1 is restrained from publishing any further tweet or
any other content on any social-media or other electronic platform in relation to the
imputations made in the offending tweets.
107. Issue No. 3 stands answered accordingly.
108. Insofar as the claim for damages is concerned, the plaintiff has sought damages
(of Rs. 5 crores) not for herself in a sense, but has instead prayed that damages be
granted to her and be then deposited in the PM Cares Fund. This is an unusual way of
claiming damages. The plaintiff could have claimed damages and could have then
disposed-of them in any manner she pleased, including by making a donation to any
charity or fund. However, to ask the court to grant damages, and to then pray that the
court remit them to a particular fund is not tenable.
109. It is this court's view, that no amount of monetary award can truly compensate for
damage to reputation, however upon a balance of all considerations, defendant No. 1 is
directed to pay to the plaintiff damages in the sum of Rs. 50 lacs within 08 (eight)
weeks.
110. Issues Nos. 4 and 5 stand answered accordingly.
111. The suit is decreed and disposed-of in the above terms; without however, any
order as to costs.
112. Let decree sheet be drawn-up.
113. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

1 WilliamShakespeare, Othello, the Moor of Venice (Michael Neil ed, first published
1622, Oxford University Press 2006) pg. 292
2 Rule 3(1) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media
Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
3 Section79 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rule 7 of the Information
Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

03-06-2025 (Page 31 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan

4 cf. para 1 of Written Statement filed by defendant No.1
5 cf. para 2 of Written Statement filed by defendant No.1
6 cf. para 4 of Written Statement filed by defendant No.1
7 cf. para 8(ii) of Written Statement filed by defendant No.1
8 cf. para 8(iii) of Written Statement filed by defendant No.1
9 cf. para 13 of Written Statement filed by defendant No.1
10 cf. para 18 of Written Statement filed by defendant No.1
11 cf. para 19 of Written Statement filed by defendant No.1
12 cf. para 27 of Written Statement filed by defendant No.1
13 cf. para 20 of Written Statement filed by defendant No.1
14 cf. para 24 of Written Statement filed by defendant No.1
15 cf. para 24 of Written Statement filed by defendant No.1
16 People'sUnion for Civil Liberties (PUCL)& Anr. vs. Union of India&
Anr.,MANU/SC/0234/2003 : 2003:INSC:176 : (2003) 4 SCC 399, para 121
17 (2021) 21st Edition at pages 1592-1597
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

03-06-2025 (Page 32 of 32) www.manupatra.com Chamber of Manasi Bhushan