Case Summary and Outcome

An Indian High Court directed X (formerly Twitter) to remove offensive tweets directed against an individual. The individual had alleged that she had been a victim of online trolling and harassment which began after she posted a tweet on X and had filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) against X requesting the immediate removal of the defamatory tweets, as well as Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) for the anonymous X users who made posts about her. She argued a case of doxing, claiming that the trolls had disclosed her identity online without her consent. The Court noted that as the initial tweet was not completely anonymous, it did not fall within the ambit of doxing but it did find that the tweets were “offensive, defamatory and derogatory”.

Facts

On January 17, 2024, an Indian woman living abroad, Shaviya Sharma, published a post from her X (formerly Twitter) handle, commenting on an interview of Yogi Adityanath, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, India. Sharma explained that her post was not directed at the Chief Minister but rather at Squint Neon – an anonymous profile known for its anti-Muslim views – which had written its own post about the issue. Sharma’s post quickly went viral, drawing attention not only to her opinion but to her personal life as well, and she became the victim of online trolling and harassment – frequently referred to as “doxing” when it includes the disclosure of personal information without consent.

Her tweet was reposted by multiple X users including Squint Neon. Some of these reposts revealed her personal data including her professional identity and photographs. The harassment escalated when one of the users tagged Sharma’s employer in the reposts, demanding that strict action be taken against her. Two days later, on January 19, 2024, someone wrote a formal email to Sharma’s employer discussing her online conduct.

Sharma approached the High Court of Delhi requesting the deletion of offensive and defamatory tweets posted against her. Sharma filed the present Interlocutory Application (I.A.) against X and Google LLC, requesting the immediate removal of the defamatory tweets, as well as Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) for the unidentified defendants. Sharma requested the banning of a specific Gmail account believed to be linked to the email sent to her employer. In her plea, she named Squint Neon and other unidentified defendants.

Decision Overview

Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the High Court of Delhi decided the instant Interlocutory Application. The central issue for the Court’s consideration was whether the case constituted “doxing” and the relief that could be granted to Sharma.

Sharma argued that her case constituted doxing as Squint Neon and other users had released her professional identity and private information on the internet. She submitted that her tweet had been anonymous but they had made her identity public with malicious intent. Sharma relied on the cases of Ramdev v. Juggernaut Books and Puttuswamy v. Union of India to emphasize an individual’s right to control his/her image, identity and its commercial use including prohibiting others from using it without consent. Sharma argued that online trolling and the malicious campaign led to public harassment and embarrassment.

X agreed to remove five out of the six objectionable tweets and provide BSI details of the anonymous users. The remaining tweet was not considered objectionable.

The Court acknowledged the lack of a definition of “doxing” in Indian law. Relying on an article by Matt Honan, Senior Staff Writer at Wired, the Court described doxing as “uncovering and revealing the identity of people who fostered anonymity”. [para. 11] The Court noted that the term originated in the 1990s from the phrase “‘dropping documents’ or ‘dropping dox’ on someone”. [para. 11] In balancing “access to open information” and “safeguarding of privacy”, the Court noted that if information that was “openly available or accessible is used for legitimate purposes”, it could not be considered doxing. [para. 11]

The Court underlined the different harmful effects of the disclosure of private and sensitive information, and differentiated doxing from other forms of cyber-bullying and cyber-harassment because of the greater risk and offline repercussions of doxing. The Court found that if an individual’s personal information was released online then they could be subject to violence in real life as well and stressed that unchecked acts of doxing could violate an individual’s right to privacy. The Court found that victims of doxing could be provided relief under the law of torts and laws of privacy guaranteed by Puttuswamy v. Union of India and Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu.

After defining the meaning of doxing and noting its negative impact, the Court examined whether the present case fell within its ambit. It noted that Sharma’s tweet was not completely anonymous as it contained her photo and initials which were enough for anyone to identify her.

Although finding that the case did not constitute doxing, the Court provided relief to Sharma as the comments posted against her were “offensive, defamatory and derogatory”. [para. 10]

The Court directed X to remove five out of six URLs requested by Sharma within 72 hours as mandated under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The sixth one was not deemed objectionable by the court. The Court further directed X to disclose the BSI of unidentified defendants for legal purposes and Google LLC to reveal details of the Gmail user within one week. Accordingly, the Court disposed of Sharma’s Interlocutory Application in the ongoing suit.