New Delhi [India], January 29 : The Delhi High Court has clarified that freedom of speech, though a fundamental right, is not unlimited and cannot be used to justify defamatory or abusive campaigns against individuals or organisations.
The Court said that the Constitution itself places reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), and the right to free expression does not cover speech that is defamatory, malicious or intended to harm the reputation and dignity of others. These observations were made after an attempt was made to defend the circulation of certain videos and social media posts by invoking the right to free speech.
The High Court observed that free expression cannot be treated as a licence to damage the standing or reputation of any person or entity. Speech that deliberately harms dignity or reputation, the Court said, falls outside constitutional protection.
Justice Jyoti Singh stressed that the right to reputation is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any form of speech that violates this right cannot claim protection as free speech. Striking a balance between freedom of expression and the right to reputation, the Court noted, is essential to the constitutional framework.
The observations came while the Court was hearing a suit filed by PhysicsWallah Limited, which alleged that a former employee had run a sustained online campaign branding the company, its founder and employees as a "scam" through YouTube videos and social media posts. The company claimed that the content was abusive, misleading and aimed at damaging public trust and goodwill while promoting a rival business.
After reviewing the videos, transcripts and other material on record, the Court found that a prima facie case for interim relief had been made out. It held that the content appeared clearly defamatory and disparaging, and was intended to tarnish the reputation and goodwill built by the company over the years.
The Court observed that harm to reputation causes irreparable damage, which cannot be adequately compensated with money.
The Court also noted that online defamation has a much wider and more serious impact due to the speed, reach and lasting nature of digital platforms. Such content, it said, can cause immediate and irreversible harm, making prompt judicial action necessary.
In addition, the High Court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and brand disparagement, observing that the use of similar marks along with terms such as "scam" was likely to mislead consumers and damage the company's brand.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the identified videos and posts be taken down and restrained the publication or circulation of any further content that disparages the company, its trademarks, founder or employees until the next hearing. Social media platforms were also directed to block the URLs if the content was not removed within the prescribed time.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor