Today, the Delhi High Court affirmed the issuance of summons to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, treating him as an accused in a criminal defamation case. This case pertains to his retweet of a video, deemed defamatory, that was originally circulated by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in May 2018.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in declining to quash the trial court's 2019 order summoning Arvind Kejriwal, asserted that retweeting a social media post containing defamatory content constitutes defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Furthermore, the court emphasized the need for a sense of responsibility when retweeting content on social media, particularly when an individual lacks knowledge about the accuracy or veracity of the information being shared.

The AAP leader had contested two orders from the trial court, which refused to dismiss the summons. The high court had previously halted the proceedings in the trial court related to this case.

A magistrate's court summoned Kejriwal to appear before it in August 2019 after a criminal complaint by the founder of social media page, "I Support Narendra Modi", alleged the AAP leader had retweeted the defamatory video.

The high court declared on Monday that retweeting should be liable to penal, civil, and tort action. Specifically, when political figures, such as the chief minister, engage in retweeting with their substantial social media following, the court asserted that these retweets transform into public endorsements that carry weight and can be perceived as credible by the public.

The high court underscored the need to reassess the concept of publication, traditionally associated with printed material, in the context of virtual platforms. It emphasized that the legal framework should evolve to align with the dynamics of social media.

The court asserted that engaging in online interactions on social media and sharing a post with others through actions like retweeting could make one liable for the offense of defamation. It further stated that if the AAP leader seeks to justify his retweet of the video, such justifications should be presented during the trial.

Initially, the chief minister challenged the magistrate's order in a session court, but his plea was dismissed. Subsequently, he contested the session court's decision in the high court, arguing that the trial court failed to recognize that his tweet was not intended or likely to harm complainant Vikas Sankrityayan.

The plea said the trial court erred in not providing any reasons for issuing the summons, and the orders were 'ex-facie' devoid of judicial application of mind.

Sankrityayan alleged that the YouTube video titled "BJP IT Cell Part II," circulated by Rathee, residing in Germany, contained numerous false and defamatory allegations.

Regarding Kejriwal, he said the chief minister retweeted it without checking its authenticity.

"The complainant alleges that the allegations made against him in this video are false, malicious and defamatory and it has lowered the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. So far, no proof has been tendered on the allegations," Sankrityayan's complaint said. 

He contended that Kejriwal, being followed by millions of people, has led to the widespread dissemination of the video not only within India but also internationally.