Attempt To Sensationalise The Issue: Delhi High Court Restrains Republishing Of Unverified Allegations Pending Investigation In Indigo Flight Incident
Court heavily criticised Actress Richa Chaddha for endorsing and amplifying an unverified allegation, accompanied by the instigatory text ‘Make him famous’.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to a corporate professional against further publication and circulation of allegedly defamatory material on social media and digital news platforms, holding that unverified allegations publicly disseminated prior to commencement of formal criminal proceedings risk undermining the presumption of innocence and the individual’s right to reputation. The Court observed that while freedom of speech remains constitutionally protected, the exercise of that right cannot extend to prejudicing an ongoing investigation or subjecting an individual to public condemnation without adjudication.
The Bench in the judgment, criticised Actress Richa Chaddha reminding that being a public figure, she has a legal and moral responsibility to verify the veracity of facts before leveraging her platform to amplify such grave accusations. The Court held such that endorsement of unverified allegations has inflicted immediate, exponential, and incalculable harm on the plaintiff's reputation.
Justice Vikas Mahajan while dealing with a civil suit instituted on the Court’s Original Side seeking permanent injunction and damages along with interim relief, observed, “The overhasty public disclosure, prima facie, suggests an attempt to sensationalize the issue and subject the plaintiff to a trial by public opinion, rather than a bona fide pursuit of legal redress. While defendant no. 1 has an unhindered right to report a grievance, but using social media to circulate allegations of inappropriate touching and revealing the identity of the plaintiff along with his photograph before a formal investigation even commences, in a prima facie view of this Court, is a severe transgression of the plaintiff's fundamental right to live with dignity and have fair trial”.
“Turning to the role of defendant No. 7, the Court must emphasize the heightened duty of care that accompanies significant public influence. Defendant No. 7 is undeniably a public figure having a massive active digital footprint. The endorsement and amplification of an unverified allegation, accompanied by the instigatory text ‘Make him famous’, transcends mere free expression and acts as a catalyst for public shaming and digital vigilantism. A public figure, such as defendant no. 7, bears a legal and moral responsibility to verify the veracity of facts before leveraging her platform to amplify grave accusations. The Court is prima facie of the view that endorsement of unverified allegations has inflicted immediate, exponential, and incalculable harm on the plaintiff's reputation. However, this Court is cognizant of the submission made by Mr. Khuranna with regard to the taking down of the tweet posted by defendant no. 7 and expects defendant no. 7 not to precipitate the issue in future”, it noted further.
Senior Advocate Shyel Trehan appeared for the plaintiff and Senior Advocate Madhav Khuranna appeared for the defendant.
According to the plaint, the plaintiff, a senior corporate professional associated with PricewaterhouseCoopers, alleged that a co-passenger journalist published false allegations of inappropriate conduct arising out of an in-flight incident on a Delhi–Mumbai flight. The plaintiff contended that the allegations were posted on social media prior to the registration of any FIR and were subsequently amplified by a public figure, media houses, and digital platforms without independent verification, resulting in reputational injury, online harassment, and suspension from employment.
The Court noted that dissemination of allegations accompanied by disclosure of identity, photographs, and categorical assertions of guilt, particularly before registration of an FIR, may transgress the constitutional balance between Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, that media reporting must remain informative rather than adjudicatory, cautioning against digital vigilantism and the phenomenon of “trial by media”, which can inflict immediate and irreversible reputational damage.
“This Court is conscious of the fact that the competing constitutional rights i.e. the defendants’ right of freedom to speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the plaintiff’s right to reputation and a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, needs to be delicately balanced. In the context of the present case, when the FIR already stands registered against the plaintiff and the investigation is underway, the defendants may be within their right to share or disseminate the contents of FIR or material which is informative but in public interest, but at the same time the defendants have to exercise restraint and refrain from publishing and circulating any material referring to the character of the plaintiff which creates an atmosphere of prejudice for him or mar his reputation and thereby causes prejudice to an ongoing investigation. The guiding principles in this regard have been articulated by the Bombay High Court in Nilesh Navalakha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 56, while examining the impact of trial by media on pending investigation”, it noted further.
Consequently, the Court restrained the concerned defendants from publishing or circulating identical or similar allegations against the plaintiff until the next date of hearing and directed social media intermediaries and digital platforms to take down specified posts and maintain status quo.
The matter has been listed before the Joint Registrar on May 25, 2026, for completion of pleadings and further proceedings.
Cause Title: Nidish Gopalkrishnan Nair v. X & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2691]
Appearances:
Plaintiff: Shyel Trehan, Sr. Adv., Priyadarshini Dewan, Shankari Mishra, Niti Khanna, Vidhi Jain and Rohan Poddar, Advocates.
Defendants: Vanya Chhabra, Madhav Khuranna, Sr. Adv., Aman Raj Gandhi, Saloni Kumar, Chattanya Sharma, Amit Badesra and Lakshay Shehrawat, Advocates.