After Delhi High Court Shows Reluctance Rajdeep Sardesai Withdraws Appeal Challenging Partial Relief To BJP's Shazia Ilmi In Defamation Case

Journalist Rajdeep Sardesai on Wednesday (July 2) withdrew his appeal from the Delhi High Court which was filed against a single judge ruling granting partial relief to BJP leader Shazia Ilmi in her defamation case over a video posted by Sardesai on 'X'— alleging that she abused a video journalist of India Today during a televised debate.

The single judge had confirmed an interim order passed in August last year, directing Sardesai to remove the video.

After a division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar showed reluctance to interfere in the matter, Sardesai withdrew the appeal.

"You are clearly infringing on her privacy. Once interview is over...Once she has gotten up, moved away she wasn't coming back...there is clearly someone following her. Don't take our comments on this, we are telling you. The learned single judge has mildly left you out. It was clear breach of privacy. That once she has gotten up, you can't be following her. And in her house? What else will she do...Once consent is ended she has gotten up..." the judges orally remarked.

The controversy arose after Ilmi took part in a debate on India Today news channel last year on Agniveer scheme row. However, she left the debate midway claiming that her mic was cut-off with an intent to censor her.

Sardesai posted the video and made a tweet stating that to chuck the mike and allegedly abusing the video journalist by Ilmi and throwing him out of her house was just not done. He also said that the video journalist was only doing his job.

In its ruling, the single judge had observed that recording and publishing the part of the video, wherein Ilmi is seen withdrawing herself from the live debate and moving out of the shooting frame, violated her right to privacy. It further said that Sardesai could not have recorded or used the said portion of the video in absence of Ilmi's express consent.

At the outset Senior advocate Rajiv Nayar appearing for Sardesai in the appeal submitted, "My lord will note that this...the single judge has allowed first part, disallowed second part and allowed the third part (of the video). When she says that she (Ilmi) has put her hair up I don't know what is the significance there".

Nayar also submitted that the single judge had found suppression by Ilmi but had only imposed costs. 

"If the Plaintiff, did not want the removal of the microphone to be recorded, she should have first asked Defendant No. 12 to stop recording her, confirm the stoppage of recording and then proceeded to remove her microphone. In the facts of this case, Plaintiff did not do any of the above; however, once she decided to withdraw from the live debate, she unmiked herself while still being seen on National Television and walked away from the shooting frame. Thus, the Plaintiff's allegations pertaining to the video recording of her removing the microphone, allegedly outraging her modesty or violating her privacy appears is misconceived and appears to be an afterthought," the single judge had said.

Nayar also submitted that single judge had said that "opening of her hair" is considered as an aspect of disallowing. He said that the single judge had relied on Supreme Court judgement which is not applicable to the present case. 

The court however orally said, "That does not mean you will violate her privacy...My Nayar the single judge has minutely gone into it. That there is one which is happening in almost continuity of your interview...But the moment she has gotten up..."

At this stage, Ilmi's counsel with respect to the video in question said, "What happened subsequently which is not being disclosed to court is, this part of the video which was recorded subsequently, this video was taken over by the channel and the journalist placed it on his tweet separately and made a comment saying that she is misbehaving with my media person..." 

"That is why, Mr Nayar what has been allowed is absolutely correct. There is nothing in this," the court orally remarked.

Thereafter, Nayar sought to withdraw the appeal, which request was allowed.

Background

Rs. 25,000 costs was imposed on Ilmi for willfully suppressing two tweets made by her, forming part of the same conversation thread of which Sardesai's tweet was part of.

On Sardesai, the single judge said that he can retain the first part of the text portion of his quote tweet as there was no objections raised by Ilmi qua the said text portion.

It added that Sardesai's comments in the second part of his tweet, i.e., abuse our video journalist and no excuse for bad behaviour, can be retained by him as the same were protected by defence of truth, being substantially correct.

It further said that after moving out of the shooting frame, Ilmi was in the comfort and privacy of her home, a space where she had a reasonable expectation of being undisturbed and not being seen by public without her consent.

The single judge recognized Ilmi's right to privacy and to be left alone qua the said portion of the video and said that her consent to record her video in her house as a part of the participation in the live debate came to an end the moment she withdrew herself from the live debate and walked away from the chair and shooting frame.

Furthermore, the Court had said that Sardesai's comment “chuck the mike” cannot be said to be substantially correct as it was without any basis and contrary to the video footage.

It added that since Sardesai is a reputed Journalist with large number of followers, the tendency of the reader to believe the accuracy of his comment would be higher. The Court said that the impact of Sardesai's tweet was certainly significant as was evident from the rapid traction that the said comment got with other news agencies.

It further said that Sardesai's tweet would not be covered by the Norms of Journalistic Conduct as it was not being published as a journalistic piece of news and was in the nature of his personal comment qua Ilmi.

Case title: RAJDEEP SARDESAI & ORS. V/s SHAZIA ILMI

Appearance: Adv Nattasha Garg for Shazia Ilmi