Celebrities hit back at social media trolls with defamation suits
Music composer AR Rahman recently threatened online portals with defamation suits for carrying harmful content related to his divorce, on the heels of actors Salman Khan and Akshay Kumar taking on YouTube channels for content against them. Legal experts said the institution of defamation claims remains a viable tool for celebrities wanting to protect their image.
“In India, celebrities increasingly resort to filing defamation suits against media outlets, including traditional media houses and social media platforms. This trend has been significantly amplified with the proliferation of social media exposure where unverified content spreads rapidly, often bypassing editorial scrutiny,” said Kailash Lad, partner at legal firm Little & Co. “Given the fascination of people at large, which is more often coupled with curiosity to know all about the personal lives of celebrities, they are particularly vulnerable to defamatory content that can harm their reputation.”
Defamatory reportage has surged with the proliferation of social media, Lad agreed. Social media platforms enable instantaneous content dissemination without the checks and balances of traditional media. The anonymity provided by social media exacerbates the issue.
Sudeshna Guha Roy, a partner for commercial disputes and arbitration at Saraf and Partners, pointed out that in the past, instances of celebrities who have taken on traditional and social media include Kareena Kapoor against a tabloid, and Shilpa Shetty against several media personnel and media houses.
“India is, in fact, a late bloomer in this aspect since it is far more common in western countries such as the UK and the US for celebrities to act against media outlets and social media platforms,” Guha Roy said.
Intent to harm
Under Indian law, defamation occurs when a person not only makes or publishes any imputation concerning another person but also does so with the intent of harming the other person’s reputation, Guha Roy pointed out. Accordingly, Indian courts look at the intent behind the defamatory publication, including whether the statements in question were made with malice or reckless disregard for truth. In sensitive cases like divorces, the courts assess whether the reportage is neutral, factual and objective, or if it contains sensational, provocative, or inflammatory language.
Celebrity rights essentially grant them a degree of control over their public image and how it’s used commercially, Alpana Srivastava, a partner at Desai & Diwanji, pointed out.
“These rights protect celebrities from unwanted intrusions into their private lives, such as unauthorised surveillance or trespassing, public disclosure of embarrassing private facts, from being portrayed in a false or misleading light, even if the portrayal is not necessarily defamatory, as well as the unauthorised use of a celebrity’s name or likeness for commercial purposes,” Srivastava explained.
However, with celebrities facing the increasing risk of defamation from online trolls who circulate hurtful claims about them on the Internet, the institution of defamation claims remains a viable tool to address such misfeasance, legal experts pointed out.
“Defamation entails civil as well as criminal penalties in India pursuant to it being recognised as a tort as well as a criminal offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, respectively. The foregoing framework intends to balance the conflicting interests associated with free speech and the importance of safeguarding one’s reputation,” said Ranjana Adhikari, a partner at legal firm Induslaw.
Under BNS 2023, defamation is subject to penalties that include a prison term of up to two years or measures such as community service. This provision is expected to play a role in addressing concerns related to defamatory content, particularly in the online space.
It has also been widely reported that Section 356 of the BNS was invoked in the context of the alleged defamatory remarks made by Telangana minister Konda Surekha about the divorce of actor Nagarjuna’s son and Samantha Ruth Prabhu, Adhikari added.
According to Sohil Shah, counsel at legal firm Pioneer Legal, social media platforms have made it very easy for reportage – defamatory or otherwise – to spread like wildfire, especially concerning celebrities.
“Information today can rapidly spread within minutes on social media and if defamatory, can very quickly cause severe reputational damage. Social media majorly consists of accounts of private individuals who are generally poorly regulated and driven primarily by emotion, adding to the speed of dissemination of information. While the IT Act, 2000, and its guidelines require social media platforms to monitor and filter content, the sheer volume of users makes implementation difficult,” said Shah.
