Freedom of Expression and Defamation in Cyberspace

Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution provides citizens with the right to freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of Speech and expression means the right to express one’s own convictions and opinions freely by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. GDPR guidelines are followed by European Union to govern social media. In India it is the combination of IT Law, Constitution Law and IPC, that governs content that is displayed on social media. This song deals with the usage of internet as source of communication especially email as via media of expressing. This can be understood in two ways. The Constitution of India provides for freedom of speech and expression. However, this is not an absolute right and can be curtailed if it goes against article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The excessive use of internet in current paraphernalia of the pandemic, the incidences as these could lead to offence of cyber stalking as discussed under section 354D. The issue of maintenance of decency and decorum over internet has been of quite a concern in recent times. From the online trolling to eve teasing and sometimes just stalking for fun aren’t alien today. Further concern is about how much information should one be sharing over the internet and whether the concerned person is allowing the information to be shared thereby laying impetus on right to be forgotten.

SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra

In India’s first case of cyber defamation, the High Court of Delhi assumed jurisdiction over a matter where a corporation’s reputation was being defamed through emails and passed an important ex-parte injunction.

Amongst the many cyber cases in India, in this case, the defendant Jogesh Kwatra being an employee of the plaintiff company started sending derogatory, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, filthy and abusive emails to his employers as also to different subsidiaries of the said company all over the world with the aim to defame the company and its Managing Director Mr. R K Malhotra. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from doing his illegal acts of sending derogatory emails to the plaintiff.
On behalf of the plaintiff, it was contended that the emails sent by the defendant were distinctly obscene, vulgar, abusive, intimidating, humiliating and defamatory in nature. Counsel further argued that the aim of sending the said emails was to malign the high reputation of the plaintiff all over India and the world. He further contended that the acts of the defendant in sending the emails had resulted in an invasion of the legal rights of the plaintiff.
Further, the defendant is under a duty not to send the aforesaid emails. It is pertinent to note that after the plaintiff company discovered the said employee could be indulging in the matter of sending abusive emails, the plaintiff terminated the services of the defendant.
After hearing detailed arguments of Counsel for Plaintiff, Hon’ble Judge of the Delhi High Court passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction, observing that a prima facie case had been made out by the plaintiff. Consequently, in this cyber fraud case in India, the Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from sending derogatory, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, humiliating and abusive emails, either to the plaintiff or to its sister subsidiaries all over the world, including their Managing Directors and their Sales and Marketing departments. Further, Hon’ble Judge also restrained the defendant from publishing, transmitting or causing to be published any information in the actual world, as also in cyberspace, which is derogatory or defamatory or abusive.
This order of Delhi High Court assumes tremendous significance as this is the first time that an Indian Court assumes jurisdiction in a matter concerning cyber defamation and grants an ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from defaming the plaintiff by sending derogatory, defamatory, abusive and obscene emails either to the plaintiffs or their subsidiaries.

With the current scenario the use of internet is yet to increase and in absence of concrete legislation, there in uncontrollable growth in use of social media. There is requirement to have a provision on lines of 66A which clearly addresses the issue of online trolling and social media abuse.