Kharkhoda Civil Court: In a defamation suit filed by the Bar Association, Kharkhoda (‘Bar Association’), against a Traffic Police Sub-Inspector (‘Sub-Inspector’) for making an Instagram video commenting on lawyers and law students from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (‘MDU’), the Single Judge Bench of Vikrant, J., dismissed the suit as withdrawn as the Sub-Inspector tendered unconditional apology which the Bar Association accepted.
Background
The Sub-Inspector had a public Instagram profile where he would upload videos spreading awareness about traffic rules and against drugs. However, in the contested video, he commented that the law students studying at or graduating from MDU will become lawyers by cheating.
Aggrieved, the Bar Association filed a suit for damages due to defamation and a permanent injunction restraining the Sub-Inspector from misusing his official position for personal gain.
In the previous hearing dated 01-08-2025, the Sub-Inspector contended that he was in charge of the awareness team of the District Police, Rohtak, but no office order was issued by the Director General of Police, Haryana (‘DGP’), or the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak (‘SP’), in his support. He further repeatedly tendered an unconditional apology, stating that he was near retirement and unaware that posting such content on social media would put him in trouble. He tendered the apology verbally as well as in writing, with assurance that he will remove all the posts and videos from Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, or any other social media platform where he was shown in the official uniform. He also promised to make a video pleading for an apology and post the same on social media in order to show his bona fide intentions.
The Sub-Inspector admitted that the videos uploaded by him were not approved by Haryana Police or the State Government, and they were not posted on their official handles or accounts. He said he was not aware of the service rules, but now he shall remove all such posts and videos from his social media accounts wherein his official uniform or vehicle was used without necessary sanction from the department. He also undertook to rename his social media accounts to avoid them from being perceived as the official account of any government official.
Analysis
The Court noted that in furtherance of the statement/undertaking given by the Sub-Inspector, he had submitted his affidavit affirming that all videos showing him in police uniform, which were uploaded on various social media platforms without seeking permission or approval from the department, had been removed, and he shall be careful in the future. Further, he made a video apologising to the lawyers, law students, etc., for making a mockery of them through his content. He also changed the misleading name of his Instagram account from @amarkatariaofficial to @amarkatariaunofficial.
Given the affidavit given by the Sub-Inspector, the Court was informed that the Bar Association did not wish to pursue the matter any further as they had accepted the apology.
Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court remarked that everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but there was a time, place, and code of conduct or behaviour to voice them.
The Court stated that it was commonly seen that, recently, many police officials were posting videos on social media showing them working in a particular fashion. They looked more engaged in glamorising the public work, which was their duty towards the nation and society. The nature of their duty was itself a pride; it did not require glamorisation through social media videos or posts.
“If anyone, while in Government service, wishes to spread awareness for a social cause, proper channels and protocol must be followed. No individual official can portray himself larger than the department in an unprofessional or amateurish manner in the name of spreading awareness.”
The Court added that such videos made in the name of social awareness, without following the strict parameters or protocol, often caused humiliation and disgrace to some individuals or groups. In many cases, the right to privacy of the people was also compromised.
Furthermore, the Court stated that in the case at hand, the videos posted by the Sub-Inspector were more like entertainment and self-glamorisation. None of the videos displayed by him in the Court, which were posted on his social media platforms, had the sanction of the Haryana Police or the Government. Therefore, his act of posting videos on social media in uniform while on duty, without sanction, was not an act done in his official capacity, as evident from his undertaking and affidavit.
The Court added that it was the need of the hour that the DGP took up the issue seriously, at the vigilance or departmental level, to identify the police officials who were engaged in such activities of self-glamorisation through social media posts and took necessary action against them as per service rules.
Accordingly, the Court directed that a copy of this order be sent to the DGP, through the office of the SP, for information and compliance. Further, as per the Bar Association’s request to withdraw the present case, the Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn.
[Bar Asscoiation, Kharkoda v. Amar Kataria, 2025 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Haryana) 3, decided on 02-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Kamal Sharma
For the respondent: Govt. Pleader Pawan Attri, Advocates Suresh Dahiya and Sunil Jangra