Delhi HC Grants Part Relief To BJP's Shazia Ilmi In Defamation Case Against Rajdeep Sardesai But Imposes Cost On Her For Suppressing Tweets

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted partial relief to BJP leader Shazia Ilmi in her defamation case against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai over a video posted by him on 'X' alleging that she abused a video journalist of India Today during a televised debate.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora however imposed Rs. 25,000 costs 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.

“The Court notes that a Plaintiff alleging defamation on social media platform arising out of a conversation thread must mandatorily disclose the full conversation thread, particularly her own tweets/comments as well and should approach the Court with clean hands,” the Court said.

Justice Singh however said 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. The Court said that Sardesai could not have recorded or used the said portion of the video in absence of Ilmi's express consent.

It thus confirmed an earlier order passed in August last year, directing Sardesai to remove the video, till the disposal of the defamation suit.

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 the order passed today, the Court said that Sardesai 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.

“The comments of the Defendant No.1 in the second part of the text portion of the Impugned Quote Tweet i.e., chuck the mike and throw him out of your house cannot stand as the same are not protected by defence of truth, for not being substantially correct. Therefore, the Defendant No.1 cannot retain the said comments,” the Court said.

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.

“The allegation of the Plaintiff that the impugned video is doctored is not prima facie made out. The Plaintiff did not place on record anything to substantiate that the impugned video is doctored. Further the IT Local Commissioner appointed by this Court did not return a positive finding stating the impugned video is doctored,” the Court said.

The Court said that if Ilmi did not want the removal of the microphone to be recorded, she should have first confirmed the stoppage of recording and then proceeded to remove her microphone. However, she did not do so and 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 Court said.

However, the Court 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.

It 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 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.

“Furthermore, when the phrases chuck the mike and throw him out of your house is evaluated in the context of Defendant No. 1's assertion in his reply, wherein he stated that the Impugned Quote Tweet was published to present the Plaintiff's true image vis-à-vis her character to the public, it can be reasonably concluded that the comment chuck the mike and throw him out of your house is an overstatement, intended to create a sensationalized narrative, which in fact had an intended effect because various news agencies published and reported the Impugned Quote Tweet as a fact to its readers/viewers,” the Court said.

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.

Justice Arora also directed four news websites to take down the video and the article published by them based the said video.

“…this Court is of the considered opinion that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled to publish or circulated the impugned video as it consists of an 18 seconds video footage for which there was no consent of the Plaintiff for its recording or publication. Moreover, having reviewed the impugned video and having perused the reply of Defendant No. 12, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the Impugned Quote Tweet, the comments 'chuck the mike' and 'throw him out of your house' are not justified and are liable to be removed,” the Court concluded.

Earlier, the Court had directed Sardesai to remove the video on X until the final disposal of the suit.