The Madras High Court has made an observation that sharing negative opinions on platforms such as Google Reviews regarding the services received does amounts to defamation of the service provider. This expression is protected under the freedom of speech and expression as outlined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

“The Court below has rightly observed that the right to free speech expressed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India covers such expression of one's review for the services received in an Online platform such as Google Review and sharing of review in the Google Review by the 1 st respondent does not amount to defaming the petitioner,” the court observed.

The single-headed bench of Justice V Sivagnanam emphasized that the internet serves as a free and significant platform for expression and communication.

 ''Posting or propagating false statements or derogatory remarks would constitute defamation, simply expressing one's views in Google reviews would not meet the criteria for defamation."

“Defamation is defined as the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual or entity. Therefore, posting or canvassing false statements/remarks derogatory in nature, causing harm to the reputation of any individual or entity in the social media, would certainly amount to defamation. But mere expressing views in Google Review about the services that were received by the 1 st respondent, in my opinion, does not amount to defamation,” the court said.

In the said matter, the Court was considering a criminal revision petition submitted by an Advocate. The petition aimed to set-aside an order issued by the Judicial Magistrate in Coimbatore, which had rejected his complaint against a former client. The lawyer alleged that the client had posted defamatory comments about him on Google Search Engine after utilizing his services, and he contended that this constituted defamation.

The court observed that the respondent client had conveyed her dissatisfaction after not receiving services that met her expectations. Additionally, the court pointed out that if false or fabricated reviews were posted, the lawyer had the option to challenge or counter such reviews by asserting their lack of merit. Furthermore, the court mentioned that in response to the client's negative reviews, there was a possibility that other clients who had received satisfactory services from the lawyer might also share their positive reviews, thereby refuting the negative ones

Thus, the court noted that the Magistrate Court had dealt with the issue rightly and there were no prima facie allegations made out against the respondents to proceed against them for defamation.