The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently heard a defamation case involving retired Air Marshal Harish Masand against several accused individuals, including family members and acquaintances. The case, which has gained traction owing to Masand's illustrious career In the Indian military, revolves around allegations of defamation stemming from a dispute in a WhatsApp group.
In the Instant case, Masand filed a private complaint against eight individuals, including one Sandeep Gupta, who allegedly made defamatory remarks about Masand in a WhatsApp group associated with their housing society.
In 2023, when the dispute was placed before the Trial Court, a prima facie case of defamation against most of the accused was ruled out.
This led to Masand filing a revision petition in the matter. The District Court later remanded the case back to the trial court for a fresh examination, resulting in a similar conclusion in September 2023. The learned judge of the trial court was of the view that only Sandeep Gupta and Lt. Col. Jagdish Pahuja would face charges.
Masand challenged this decision through a criminal revision petition, 95/2023, which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge in February 2024.
The court found no error in the previous rulings, stating that the other accused did not have sufficient involvement in the alleged defamation.
During the court proceedings, Masand, representing himself, argued that the lower courts had misinterpreted the evidence and the context of the accusations. During the arguments, he stressed on the reputational harm caused to him considering his prior service to the nation coupled with his role as community leader in Indore.
Dismissing the petition, the High Court found nothing erroneous in the verdict of the trial court.
“On perusal of the orders of the lower courts, and also the WhatsApp chats between the parties, which is filed by the petitioner along with the complaint, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality or jurisdictional error has been committed by both the District Courts”, the court said.
“It is found that in the entire text of the WhatApp group, only two persons namely, Sandeep Gupta and Lt. Col. Jagdish Pahuja have expressed their views in detail, whereas, the other persons have made passing remarks only, agreeing with Sandeep Gupta and Lt. Col. Jagdish Pahuja”, it added.
Addressing the question of defamation in digital spaces in the context of the case, the court was of the view that merely expressing one's agreement to a post by a one liner may tantamount to agreeing to the expression made by the other members of the group/accused persons, however, the conversation in the WhatsApp group is required to be seen in its entirety, and has to see the context in which it is made, and also the purpose for which the Whatsapp group was formed.
“It is apparent that the aforesaid WhatsApp group was formed to facilitate the activities of the housing society, including its day- to-day problems, in which certain criticism has been made by one of the members, on which certain views have been expressed by the other members also, in a very cryptic manner”, the court said.
‘These comments appear to have been made without any premeditation, and on the spur of the moment only. They appear to have been made without any intention of defaming the petitioner, and in such circumstances, they cannot be held liable for the long posts which are made by only two members of the said group”, the court added.
 (1)_20241122153242_original_image_7.webp)
