Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by the plaintiff is aggrieved of doxing wherein various Defendants have searched for and published private information about the Plaintiff on the internet with malicious intent. Prathiba M Singh, J., held that since the plaintiff’s posts are stated to have been taken down it would suffice to direct that the defaulting URLs be taken down by platform ‘X’ (Defendant 9) and ’X’ shall reveal the basic subscriber information of the alleged tweets of Defendant 1 to 7 to the Plaintiff within one week.
The case revolved around a tweet posted by the plaintiff, concerning an interview with a public political figure. Despite the plaintiff’s assertion of anonymity, various offensive responses emerged on social media platforms, including disclosure of her personal information and contacting her employer. The plaintiff alleged that these actions constitute doxing, wherein private information is maliciously exposed online.
The counsel for plaintiff argued that individuals have the right to control their own image and personal information. They referenced legal precedents such as the judgment in Swami Ramdev v. Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11549 and K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 to support their position. The plaintiff expressed regret for the initial tweet and emphasized their desire to cease such behavior.
The Court observed that although the plaintiff’s initial tweet wasn’t entirely anonymous, as identifiable information was present, the subsequent offensive tweets and actions constituted harassment. The Court recognized the potential dangers of doxing, highlighting the need to balance privacy rights with access to information in the digital age.
The Court remarked that
“There can be no doubt that acts of Doxing if permitted to go on unchecked could result in violation of right to privacy. It is observed that Doxing hasn’t been defined in the Indian legal landscape, nor has it been made a statutory offence in India. The term ‘Doxing’ comes from the phrase ‘dropping documents’ or ‘dropping dox’ on someone, which appears to have originated in 1990s, that involved uncovering and revealing the identity of people who fostered anonymity. It is further observed that even if doxing is not used as a tool for sexual harassment, these factors also contribute to the harms of having personal information revealed on the Internet as there is disclosure/ public release of an individual’s private, sensitive, personal information. The omnipresent nature of the internet, coupled with easy access to technology has ensured that a person’s real and virtual lives are merged. Consequently, whatever happens online has very real life i.e., offline repercussions for a subject.”
The Court further remarked that
“The internet affords a comparatively large audience, thereby statistically increasing the chances of any violence occuring in response to Doxing, and so when a subject’s information is floated on air for the entire world to peruse, especially in certain serious situations threats and violent calls may crop up from any part of the world. Doxing is different from other forms of cyber-bullying and cyber-harassment, as the risk of putting the subject in physical danger increases exponentially. When a potential offender gets hold of the subject’s personal information, such as where she lives, it becomes easier for him to translate online threats into real life violence. On the other hand, however, any information which is openly available or accessible is used for legitimate purposes, there can be no complaint. Thus, the Court has to strike a delicate balance between access to open information and safeguarding of privacy.”
The Court concluded that a plaintiff is a professional person against whom various comments are being made on the internet which are offensive, defamatory and derogatory. Though the initial tweet of the Plaintiff may have been the cause, considering her professional and personal standing, this Court is of the opinion that the offending tweets, at this stage, ought to be removed since harm could be caused to her reputation and her person. In the opinion of this Court, the present case does not fully constitute a suit against `Doxing’ as the identity of the Plaintiff was not completely anonymous, as anyone who knew the Plaintiff could have easily figured that the tweet was by her, due to her initials and her photograph in the tweet posted by her.
Thus, the Court held that while doxing is not explicitly defined in Indian law, it can still result in a breach of privacy rights. Despite the absence of specific legislation, the court suggested utilizing tort laws and privacy laws to provide remedies to victims of doxing. Consequently, the court ordered the removal of offensive tweets, disclosure of subscriber information by Twitter, and disclosure of details regarding a Gmail address. These actions were aimed at safeguarding the plaintiff’s privacy and reputation. Additionally, the court directed the plaintiff to implead additional parties based on the disclosed information and scheduled further hearings to address the matter.
[Shaviya Sharma v. Squint Neon, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1445, decided on 22-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Raghav Awasthi & Mr. Kunal Tiwari, Advocates for plaintiff
Mr. Deepak Gogia and Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal, Advs. for D-9.
Mr. Neel Mason, Mr. Vihan Dang, Ms. Pragya Jain & Mr. Aditya Mathur, Advs. for D-10
