In a candid observation regarding the nature of discourse on social media, the Delhi High Court has remarked that individuals who are overly sensitive to criticism should perhaps avoid being on platforms like X (formerly Twitter).

The observation came from the bench while hearing a defamation suit filed by journalist Rohan Dua, who had approached the Court seeking the removal of certain allegedly defamatory tweets and comments directed at him

During the hearing, the Court examined one of the specific comments flagged by the plaintiff as defamatory. Upon reading the content, the Judge found it to be relatively innocuous compared to the usual volatility of online arguments.

The Court orally remarked:

"It cannot be milder than this. If you people are so touchy, then don't go on the platform."

This statement underscores a growing judicial trend where Courts distinguish between actionable defamation (malicious falsehoods that cause tangible harm) and online rhetoric (opinions, insults, or "mild" criticism) that is par for the course on free-speech platforms.

The journalist, Rohan Dua, had moved the Court to restrain certain handles from posting defamatory content and to seek the removal of existing posts. While the Court is empowered to issue "dynamic injunctions" or takedown orders in cases of clear libel, it exercises caution to ensure such orders do not stifle free speech or become tools to silence critics.

By characterizing the plaintiff's reaction as "touchy," the Court signaled that public figures and journalists, who often use these platforms to disseminate their own views, must be prepared to face a certain degree of pushback or "trolling" without immediately resorting to legal censorship, provided the content does not cross the legal threshold of defamation.

This incident highlights the "Thick Skin" Doctrine often applied to public figures in defamation law.

Platform Dynamics: Courts recognize that X is a "volumetric" platform where swift, short, and often blunt exchanges occur.
Threshold for Intervention: Not every insult is defamation. For a court to intervene, the statement must lower the character of the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society—not just hurt the person's ego.