The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a defamation suit filed by online legal education company LawSikho against four individuals who had criticized its courses on social media platform X (formerly Twitter).

The Court not only rejected the case but also imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on LawSikho for failing to disclose the full context of the conversation.

The Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora emphasized that plaintiffs alleging defamation on social media must disclose the entire conversation thread, including their own tweets.


The Court directed LawSikho to deposit Rs. 1 lakh with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. "The plaint is thus rejected with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four (4) weeks. Pending applications stand disposed of," the Court said.

Social Media Criticism Not Necessarily Defamatory

The dispute stemmed from an exchange on X regarding the quality of legal education at National Law Universities (NLUs) and the courses offered by LawSikho. LawSikho representative Ramanuj Mukherjee had initiated the conversation with a tweet, to which Advocates Aditya Garg, Ashish Goel, and others responded critically.

LawSikho filed a defamation suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages, claiming that the critical tweets could harm its business and affect its share value. The defendants, however, argued that their statements fell within the protection of fair comment and represented their honest opinions.

Court: Tweets Must Be Viewed in Context

The Single Bench ruled that tweets cannot be assessed in isolation for defamation claims. Given the casual and fast-paced nature of social media, a detailed legal analysis of a short tweet would be disproportionate. “The Court has to consider that the nature of the medium is conversational, and public reaction to a tweet is impressionistic and fleeting,” the Court said.

The Court further noted that Mukherjee himself had provoked the debate and must “maintain the proverbial thick skin” regarding responses from anonymous users, which were intended as insults rather than defamatory statements. "The plaintiff no. 2, having initiated the conversation with its provocative lead tweet and response tweet (i) on a casual medium such as X ought to maintain the proverbial thick skin qua the tweets of an anonymous user, which are intended as an insult," the Bench said.

Casual Social Media Remarks Not Legally Defamatory

Drawing a distinction between social media posts and traditional news publications, the Court observed:

1. Newspapers and magazines are read with the intent to retain information and influence public opinion.

2. In contrast, social media platforms like X are casual, and users do not perceive them as a reliable or verified source of information.

Therefore, tweets that may be disparaging do not necessarily amount to defamation, as they do not seriously alter public perception about a person or business. "The Court has considered that the casual nature of the medium invites anonymous posts which may ex-facie be disparaging but cannot amount to defamation as it may not have a serious effect to form an impression about the character of the plaintiff," the Court said.

Court Criticizes LawSikho for Bypassing IT Rules

The Court also took note that LawSikho had not first exhausted its statutory remedy under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which provide for reporting grievances to a Grievance Officer before approaching the judiciary.

While rejecting the suit, the Court clarified that LawSikho could still pursue its remedy under the IT Rules.

Cause Title: Addictive Learning Technology Limited & Anr v. Aditya Garg & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2025: DHC: 1178]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Raghav Awasthi

Respondent: Advocates Himanshu Bhushan, Shagun Srivastava

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh AroraDelhi High CourtIT Rules 2021Lawsikho

Sukriti Mishra

Legal Correspondent

Sukriti Mishra is a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She extensively covers the Supreme Court. She has completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022, she has previously worked with another legal news portal, where she extensively covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.