New Delhi, A Delhi court has dismissed a civil defamation suit filed by restaurant owner and entrepreneur Vidur Kanodia against social-media professional Lakshita Jain over alleged derogatory Instagram posts, holding that the expressions used, including “bully” and “unprofessional”, did not meet the legal threshold for defamation.
District Judge Arvind Bansal observed that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima-facie case of defamation, noting that the impugned posts, when read in context, constituted “reasonable expressions of criticism” arising out of a commercial dispute between the parties.
The suit stemmed from a dispute over payments to be made by Kanodia for social-media promotion services provided by Jain, leading to the latter posting Instagram stories alleging non-payment and calling out the entrepreneur’s conduct.
Kanodia had sought damages of ₹50 lakh and removal of the posts, claiming reputational harm and harassment. He had also sought a permanent injunction against Jain and her team, restraining them from posting any defamatory or derogatory content about him and his business entities in the future.
The court said the plaintiff had not placed sufficient material on record to show that the statements harmed his reputation or exposed him to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
“Mere use of the words ‘bully’ and ‘unprofessional’ is neither derogatory nor defamatory when read as a whole in the context of the transaction between the parties,” the court held in its order dated February 28.
It said: “Admitting a claim of the nature raised by the plaintiff would open floodgates for unscrupulous litigants to initiate litigation for every comment or post not liked by them or the ones derogatory merely in their subjective understanding of the things.”
The court also found inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s claims, noting that he failed to disclose key details of the agreement, including payment terms and milestone conditions. It also observed that the plaintiff admitted that services were delivered and did not demonstrate anywhere in the plaint that the statements made by the defendant on the Instagram posts were false.
The court produced a particularly inflammatory message from the plaintiff on the defendant’s phone, as he told her he had blocked her because he had found her irritating and argumentative, and further cautioned her against making legal threats. The court noted that the usage of the word “bully” in Jain’s Instagram story was due to this message.
“In the world of social media, where the plaintiff and his restaurant exposed itself to paid promotion, it should also keep itself open to negative opinions and expressions. It is to be seen that the word ‘bully’ or ‘unprofessional’ has not been used in isolation by the defendant in her story,” the court said, noting that she reasoned out its usage in the same story while sharing the screenshot of the chat between her and the plaintiff.
Emphasising the need to balance one’s constitutional right to free speech and criticism with another’s right to safeguard their reputation, the court said it cannot “knock down reasonable expressions of criticism on social media under the garb of defamation law”.
Holding that the content did not satisfy the essential ingredients of civil defamation, the court dismissed the suit, saying it disclosed no cause of action.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.