Freedom of Speech Cannot Shield Influencers Who Circulate Unverified Allegations Against Brands: Delhi High Court

"Truth Must Be Substantiated by Authentic Evidence to Avail Protection in Defamation Cases" —  Delhi High Court drawing a clear boundary between an influencer’s right to free speech and the commercial rights of business entities. Justice Amit Bansal held that the constitutional guarantee of free expression does not empower individuals to circulate half-truths, unverified reports, or misleading material in the name of public interest. The Court made it plain that "truth is a complete defense to defamation, but it must be backed by credible and reliable evidence."

The controversy arose after several social media influencers uploaded videos criticizing San Nutrition’s "ISO PRO" whey protein product, citing laboratory tests which allegedly demonstrated substandard quality. Claiming that the influencers had made these allegations without verifying the authenticity of their data and with a motive to harm the company’s commercial interests, San Nutrition Private Limited initiated a suit seeking injunctive reliefs against defamation, trademark infringement, and disparagement.
The defendants asserted that their actions were protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and sought to shield their publications under the right to free speech and the right of the public to be informed.

Justice Amit Bansal underlined that free speech is not an absolute license to cause reputational harm under the pretext of critique. The Court observed:
"A social media influencer cannot claim absolute immunity merely by invoking the right to freedom of expression, particularly when the speech concerns commercial goods and services impacting reputation."
The Court firmly pointed out that when defendants claim "truth" as a defense, the burden lies squarely upon them to substantiate their statements with authentic and verifiable evidence. Referring to established principles of defamation law, Justice Bansal reiterated:
"It is a cardinal principle that if the defense of truth is raised, it must be proved. Truth must be the whole truth, not merely a collection of selected facts which convey a misleading picture."
Rejecting the influencers’ contention that providing only the gist of test results was sufficient, the Court stressed the importance of complete and credible disclosure where serious allegations are made.
Additionally, the Court cited the "Bonnard principle," cautioning that while injunctions against publications are rare before a full trial, courts must not permit speech which is prima facie misleading, commercially damaging, and based on inadequate diligence.

The Delhi High Court declined to immediately injunct the publication of the influencer videos, holding that the balance between free speech and reputation protection demands a full trial. However, the Court left no doubt that:
"Where allegations affect commercial reputation, influencers carry a heightened burden of diligence and authenticity."
It noted that influencers today possess immense outreach and persuasive capacity and must accordingly exercise greater caution before presenting alleged facts as gospel truth to the public. Justice Bansal observed that failure to distinguish between personal opinions and factual assertions could amount to actionable defamation.
The Court also made an important distinction between pure opinion and statements of fact, clarifying that where the latter are made, especially involving brands and commercial products, they must withstand rigorous scrutiny if challenged.

Through this important ruling, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that the right to free speech is tempered by the obligation to respect the reputation of others, particularly in commercial contexts. The judgment warns that influencers cannot act irresponsibly under the garb of public interest and underscores that "truth" is not a cosmetic label but a substantive defense that must be proved with rigorous evidence. Justice Bansal’s observations resonate forcefully:
"Freedom of speech is a treasured right, but it does not sanctify dissemination of unverified, misleading, or half-true statements that cause injury to another’s reputation."
The judgment is a timely reminder that in the digital age, speech carries immense power — and thus, even greater responsibility.

Date of Decision: 28 April 2025