NEW DELHI<\/em>: The Delhi High Court<\/a><\/strong> has strongly criticised media platforms, a journalist, and actress Richa Chadha<\/strong> for social media posts that labelled a man as a \u201cmolester<\/em><\/strong>\u201d in connection with an Indigo flight incident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Vikas Mahajan<\/strong> observed that several media reports and online posts went beyond the actual FIR and created a narrative that effectively judged the man before any proper investigation or trial. The Court noted that instead of reporting facts, these platforms crossed the line and acted as if guilt had already been decided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court specifically criticised a post by \u201cPardafaash Media<\/em><\/strong>\u201d, calling it the \u201cmost outrageous and unwarranted usage of social media<\/em><\/strong>\u201d for sensationalising the matter without verifying facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe post in question labels the plaintiff as a ‘molester’ prominently using that expression right above his photograph which also includes his and his employer’s name, prima facie, constituting online defamation that could cause public ridicule and loss of reputation to the plaintiff,\u201d the Court said.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The matter arose from a defamation suit filed by the man against multiple parties including a journalist, X Corp, OBNews, Google LLC, Meta Platforms, NDTV Hindi, ABP Live, Richa Chadha and Indigo Airlines.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The issue started from an incident on March 11 during a Delhi\u2013Mumbai Indigo flight, where a female journalist accused the man of inappropriate behaviour during the journey. However, as per the man\u2019s claim, he denied all allegations and stated that he was seated and asleep before landing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The situation escalated when the journalist posted the allegations on social media, revealing the man\u2019s identity, photograph, and professional details even before any FIR<\/a> was registered<\/strong>. This post was then widely shared and amplified by media houses and public figures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Actor Richa Chadha also reposted the content with the remark \u201cMake him famous<\/em><\/strong>,\u201d which further increased the spread and impact of the allegations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court, while granting interim relief to the man, clearly stated that such posts had \u201cprematurely labelled<\/em><\/strong>\u201d him guilty and violated his right to reputation and fair trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn the context of the present case, when the FIR already stands registered against the plaintiff and the investigation is underway, the defendants may be within their right to share or disseminate the contents of FIR or material which is informative but in public interest,<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n but at the same time the defendants have to exercise restraint and refrain from publishing and circulating any material referring to the character of the plaintiff which creates an atmosphere of prejudice for him or mar his reputation and thereby causes prejudice to an ongoing investigation,\u201d the Court said.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also highlighted the timing of events, noting that the allegations were posted online even before legal action formally began.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe overhasty public disclosure, prima facie, suggests an attempt to sensationalize the issue and subject the plaintiff to a trial by public opinion, rather than a bona fide pursuit of legal redress.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n While defendant no. 1 has an unhindered right to report a grievance, but using social media to circulate allegations of inappropriate touching and revealing the identity of the plaintiff along with his photograph before a formal investigation even commences, in a prima facie view of this Court, is a severe transgression of the plaintiff’s fundamental right to live with dignity and have fair trial,\u201d the Court said.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Regarding Richa Chadha, the Court pointed out that public figures have greater responsibility due to their wide influence and reach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe endorsement and amplification of an unverified allegation, accompanied by the instigatory text \u201eMake him famous\u201f, transcends mere free expression and acts as a catalyst for public shaming and digital vigilantism. A public figure, such as defendant no. 7, bears a legal and moral responsibility to verify the veracity of facts before leveraging her platform to amplify grave accusations.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court is prima facie of the view that endorsement of unverified allegations has inflicted immediate, exponential, and incalculable harm on the plaintiff’s reputation. However, this Court is cognizant of the submission made by Mr. Khuranna with regard to the taking down of the tweet posted by defendant no. 7 and expects defendant no. 7 not to precipitate the issue in future,\u201d the Court said.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court finally directed the journalist, OBNews, and Pardafaash Media not to publish any similar defamatory content against the man until the next hearing<\/strong>. It also ordered social media platforms to remove such posts, including Chadha\u2019s repost if it was still available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This case once again highlights how quickly allegations can turn into public judgment in the digital space, often before facts are verified or tested in court, raising serious concerns about fairness, due process, and reputational damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Legal Provisions & Principles Involved (Explanatory Table)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n