On June 22, 2024, Ramanuj Mukherjee, Managing Director of Addictive Learning Technology Ltd., which owns Lawsikho – an online legal education company – wrote a post on his personal X (formerly Twitter) account. In this post (“Lead Tweet”), Mukherjee criticized the National Law Universities (NLUs) – public law schools in India – and emphasized “the lack of competence of NLU graduates hired by top law firms”.

On the same day, Aditya Garg, an alumnus of NLU Delhi, published posts disagreeing with Mukherjee’s post. A third user, “Neet,” responded to Garg’s tweet with their own disagreement, to which Garg replied: “While I don’t entirely agree with the assumption that NLU folks are more focused on their education, I do agree with that this man wants to encourage law schools to become trade schools rather than places to critically think. Better yet, he wants to teach this ‘trade’ for profit” (“Tweet 1”).

This led to an exchange on X between Mukherjee and Garg. Mukherjee responded to Garg’s post, stating: “I will teach my trade for profit irrespective of what NLUs do – been at it, and we are #1 at it in the world NLUs being terrible at teaching trade is not bad for my business However, one small correction, NLUs don’t teach you to think critically, mostly just brainwash people into leftist cults.” (“Response Tweet 1”). To this, Garg replied: “NLUs may not be great institutions of learning, but at least they’re not selling pipe dreams to make profit off of legitimate insecurities. Also, I’d imagine those horrible reviews you often bury are bad for your trade but you’re great at bullying everyone who raises them :)” (“Tweet 2”). Mukherjee responded: “You have made serious false allegations, let’s hope you are open to defending them in the Court as well.” (“Response Tweet 2”). Garg countered: “Ramanuj – if having an opinion about your so-called service constitutes a false allegation, be my guest. If you’re so confident about your business, at least please be willing to deal with the criticism. Threatening me with frivolous lawsuits isn’t the way. Grow up.”

An anonymous user, “Horsho,” joined the conversation and posted: “such an insecure little prick cries defamation over a fucking tweet what kind of a loser does that even” (“Tweet 3”).

On June 23, 2024, Ashish Goel, an alumnus of NLU Kolkata, independently published a post on X stating: “When it started out, Lawsikho used NUJS as launchpad to gain popularity, access to Indian law students. Of course, founders can today claim that NLUs make no difference to their business, now they are pretty successful at bribing gullible law students with false hopes and dreams” (“Tweet 4”). Another X user, Shahjahan Raza Khan, asked: “So you mean their courses doesn’t work?” To which Goel replied: “‘courses don’t work’ – work to achieve what exactly?” (“Tweet 5”). In response to Goel’s Tweet 4, Mukherjee posted: “There is a twitter lawyer with a sagging practice who gets only some attention on twitter by associating with other urban naxals. He has spoken! Apparently we used NUJS’ credibility to build Lawsikho. The fact free imbecile has blocked me, but someone please educate him:……” (“Response Tweet 3”). In the same thread, referring to Mukherjee, an anonymous user commented: “Tainted right from the top by a certain shade that shall not be named” (“Tweet 6”).

Following these exchanges, Addictive Learning and Mukherjee filed a defamation suit in the Delhi High Court against Garg, Goel, and two anonymous users. They sought a permanent injunction restraining the X users from publishing or posting any statements about them on online or offline platforms. Mukherjee also requested the Court to prohibit the defendants from approaching him or any person related to him. The suit was additionally filed against X.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora delivered the judgment of the Delhi High Court. The primary issue for consideration was whether the posts from the X users – Garg, Goel, and two anonymous users – on X were defamatory.

Addictive Learning and Mukherjee argued that the X users’ posts had the potential to harm the company’s reputation and financial stability, posing a “significant risk to value of its share which is listed on National Stock Exchange.” [para. 6] They accused the users of “spreading false information and undermining the trust of the investors.” [para. 6] They argued that Tweet 1 “undermines their integrity and commitment to providing a well-rounded education” and that Garg’s suggestion that the company’s motives were profit-driven discredited its “genuine efforts to improve legal education.” [para. 17] They added that Garg was spreading false and defamatory statements, harming their professional relationships and that Garg’s Tweet 2 implied they regularly received negative feedback and intentionally hid it, suggesting a lack of professional competence and the use of unethical, aggressive tactics to suppress criticism. Addictive Learning and Mukherjee submitted that anonymous user “Horosho’s” Tweet 3 was derogatory and harmed their public image. In respect of Goel’s Tweet 4, they argued that it suggested “unethical and dishonest behaviour” on their part and that “they exploit[ed] the aspirations and trust of law students,” [para 20.1] and that Goel’s Tweet 5 implied that their courses “did not work” and that they failed to “deliver the promised education.” [para 21.6] They claimed that Tweet 6, posted by an anonymous user, falsely commented on their political inclinations and caused harm to their reputation.

Goel submitted that Addictive Learning had no cause of action against him, as Tweet 4 did not reference the company and was a fair comment on Mukherjee. He argued that, as a practising advocate, his opinion was based on his legal experience as, citing a 2020 email from Addictive Learning, he maintained that the company’s course promotions created false hopes for law students. He argued that Mukherjee’s Lead Tweet was provocative and intended to engage discussion on X and submitted that Mukherjee’s posts engaged with and ridiculed him, suggesting that Mukherjee did not initially consider Goel’s tweets defamatory. Regarding Tweet 6, Goel stated that he merely sought clarification on another user’s grammatical error and did not express an opinion on Addictive Learning’s courses. Goel submitted that Mukherjee suppressed the fact that they knew each other and accused Mukherjee of being a “habitual litigant” who frequently files injunction suits against individuals posting negative reviews about Addictive Learning’s courses on social media. [para 7.7] Goel sought the rejection of the suit for failing to disclose any cause of action.

The Court referred to an online article, “Motivations for Proactive and Reactive Trolling on Social Media: Developing and Validating a Four-Factor Model” (Sage Publications), by Yuanyi Mao, Tianyi Xu, and Ki Joon Kim. It noted that this article discussed the concept of “Online Trolling: A New Typology,” described as when a “user intentionally publishes posts on its social media” to “provoke emotional responses” from others, ultimately increasing “its followers and social media presence.” [para 10.2] The Court analyzed Mukherjee’s Lead Tweet and the responses from Garg, Goel, and other users, finding that they fell within the parameters of “online trolling” as defined in the research paper. It held that Mukherjee’s posts exhibited characteristics of “pro-active/provocative trolling” and “reactive trolling” since he criticized NLUs, their faculty, curriculum, and the competence of their students and X users responded to it. The Court observed that Mukherjee “playfully engaged in the banter” and enjoyed the “sparring with the defendants” as his Lead Tweet had the intended effect. [para 10.7]

The Court analyzed all the posts separately, emphasizing that one user’s post could not be attributed to another.

The Court referred to the British case of Monroe v Hopkins, which recognized the “dynamic and interactive” nature of social media platforms and held that a single post cannot be assessed in isolation to determine whether it is defamatory. The Court noted that a plaintiff’s responses must be considered to understand the conversation’s context and that a one-sided approach, isolating a single post, is insufficient to establish a cause of action. Therefore, by assessing the tone and tenor of Mukherjee’s Lead Tweet, the Court found that his “tweets were published with an intent to elicit response from the audience.” [para 17.10]

Regarding Tweets 1 and 2 by Garg, the Court found that Mukherjee’s response to these did not suggest he perceived them as defamatory at the time he engaged with Garg on X. It found that Mukherjee “merrily engaged” with Garg, belittled him, and continued criticizing NLUs, and held that Garg’s tweets were reactionary to Mukherjee’s provocation. [para 17.8] The Court noted that in the conversation thread, Mukherjee mentioned filing a case in court (Response Tweet 2) but this tweet was not presented as evidence. The Court emphasized that a plaintiff alleging defamation on social media must disclose the full conversation thread, including their own tweets and comments, and must approach the Court with clean hands. The Court observed that, when Garg did not back down, Mukherjee resorted to claiming false allegations. The Court held that Garg’s tweets did not constitute defamation and that, even if Garg’s tweets were “false and malicious,” they did not cause legal injury due to the conversational nature of X. [para 17.13] The Court commented that users on X do not perceive the platform as a “reliable verified source of information” but rather as a “casual medium of a conversational social media platform.” [para 15] It added that, unlike newspapers and magazines, social media posts are not viewed with the same degree of credibility and cited Stocker v. Stocker, where the UK Supreme Court commented on the “casual and fast-paced nature” of social media platforms and that extensive analysis of posts should be avoided with courts focusing on how a normal social media user would interpret statements in context. [para 15.1] While calling the nature of X “casual and fast-paced”, the Court, in the present case, held that an elaborate analysis of a 140-character post may be disproportional and noted that the reaction of users on X is “impressionistic and fleeting”. [p. 53] Therefore, the Court found that Mukherjee had failed to show any evidence of specific legal injury or reputational harm caused due to Garg’s tweets. With reference to the Shobhna Bhartiya v. GNCTD and Nidhi Bhatnagar (Dr.) v. Citi Bank N.A cases, the Court distinguished between real injury and perceived injury: it observed that to maintain a defamation action, words should “lower the plaintiff’s dignity in the eyes of the others right-thinking people of the society” and not “merely injure his feelings or annoys him”. [para. 13] The Court found that Addictive Learning and Mukherjee had failed to show any evidence of specific legal injury or reputational harm and so held that the complaint filed by Addictive Learning and Mukherjee failed the test laid down in Shobhna and Nidhi and should be rejected.

Assessing Tweet 3 by anonymous user ‘Horosho’, the Court cited the UK cases, Monroe v. Hopkins and Vine v. Baron, which had held that “mere vulgar abuse” is not actionable as defamation. [para 18.2] The Court ruled that Tweet 3 was “merely an abuse and a heated response” to Mukherjee, which no ordinary reader would take seriously. [para 18.4]

Looking at the tweets by Goel, the Court noted that Mukherjee failed to disclose prior interactions with Goel regarding disagreements over the effectiveness of Lawsikho’s courses. It also observed that Mukherjee’s response to Goel in Response Tweet 3 was derogatory which could itself be considered insult or verbal abuse. The Court held that Mukherjee’s tweets were meant to “promote the online courses of Lawsikho” while criticizing NLU education and provoking reactions from users. [para 20.10] The Court accepted Goel’s submission that Tweet 5 – “‘courses don’t work’” – could not be attributed to him, and Mukherjee’s grievance should be against Shahjahan Raza Khan, another X user, who was not made a party to the suit. The Court held that, even if attributed to Goel, that post did not cause harm or injury to Addictive Learning or Mukherjee. The Court stated that these comments were “unlikely to influence any reasonable user into forming any informed opinion about the credibility of the courses offered by Lawsikho,” and relying on the cases of Kaushal Kishore v. UP and Major General M.S. Ahluwalia v. Tehelka.Com, it emphasized the necessity of proving substantial injury or harm to reputation. [para 21.8] Since Mukherjee failed to demonstrate any injury from Goel’s Tweet 4 and Tweet 5, the Court rejected the complaint for lack of cause of action and noted that Mukherjee had withheld his response tweets and previous disagreements with Goel, suggesting the suit aimed to create a “chilling effect” on Goel. [para 22.5]

Regarding Tweet 6 by an anonymous user, the Court relied on the case of M.J. Zakharia Sait v. T.M. Mohammed, stating that if a plaintiff alleges innuendo, its meaning and related facts must be specifically pleaded in the suit. Referring to the Vine case, the Court assessed the “natural and ordinary meaning of the words” and found that Tweet 6 did not convey the impression claimed by Mukherjee from the perspective of an ordinary reader. Citing Kaushal Kishore and M.S. Ahluwalia cases, the Court held that Mukherjee failed to demonstrate any actual or substantial injury caused by the tweet.

The Court cited section 356 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024 which defines defamation and lays down certain exceptions. Section 356(b) states that “A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public”. The Court observed that social media posts are inherently subject to both appreciation and criticism and the person making such posts should be thick-skinned. [para 17.10] The Court also noted that Addictive Learning and Mukherjee had failed to avail a statutory remedy available to them under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guideline and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 before approaching the Court for an injunction. Under these Rules, aggrieved users can file a complaint with the “Grievance Officer” and request for removal of an alleged defamatory, vulgar or abusive post.

Accordingly, the Court found that Mukherjee’s post was provocative, prompting reactions from other users, which did not amount to defamation due to the conversational nature of X and the content and tone of Mukherjee’s own tweets. Given this context, the Court ruled that no reasonable user would interpret the posts as defamatory in the manner alleged by Mukherjee. The Court acknowledged that the casual nature of the platform invites anonymous posts that may appear disparaging but do not necessarily constitute defamation, as they are unlikely to have a serious impact on shaping public opinion about the plaintiff’s character. It further observed that a person cannot be penalized for holding an opinion, and a cause of action arises only if such an opinion results in actual injury, harm, or loss and so substantial injury must be established by the aggrieved party, which Addictive Learning and Mukherjee failed to do.

Consequently, the Court ruled that there was no cause of action and rejected the complaint under the Code of Civil Procedure. It also imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 (approximately US$1 170 in April 2025) on Addictive Learning and Mukherjee, to be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four months.