The Delhi High Court has recently expressed disapproval towards actor Richa Chadha, a journalist, and various media outlets for spreading unverified claims of sexual misconduct involving a passenger on an IndiGo flight that occurred on March 11.

Justice Vikas Mahajan remarked that such behavior constitutes 'digital vigilantism' and public shaming, which could inflict 'incalculable harm' on the reputation of the individual involved.

On the day of the incident, a female journalist on a flight from Delhi to Mumbai accused a fellow passenger of inappropriate touching. Following the landing, she took to social media to share her allegations, revealing the man's identity, photo, and professional background.

This post gained significant traction and was widely circulated by various media platforms, with Chadha sharing it and commenting, 'make him famous.'

In response, the accused has rejected the allegations, asserting that he remained seated and was asleep before the plane landed. He has since initiated a defamation lawsuit in the High Court.

The court noted that endorsing and spreading unverified claims, particularly by someone in the public eye, transcends the limits of free speech.

It emphasized that public figures have both a legal and ethical obligation to verify facts prior to amplifying serious accusations.

The court acknowledged that Chadha had removed her post and expressed its expectation that she would not exacerbate the situation further.

Additionally, the court criticized the journalist for making the allegations public on social media before filing a formal complaint, labeling it as an 'overhasty public disclosure' that seemed to sensationalize the matter and subject the accused to a 'trial by public opinion' instead of seeking legal recourse.

It concluded that disclosing the identity and image of the accused prior to a formal investigation prima facie infringed upon his 'fundamental right to live with dignity and receive a fair trial.'

The court also instructed media organizations to retract the allegedly defamatory content and prohibited the defendants from disseminating similar material until the next hearing.