Delhi HC Slaps Rs 25,000 Cost On BJP Leader Shazia Ilmi For Suppression Of Facts In Case Against Rajdeep Sardesai
While taking a very grim view of suppression of key facts from the court, the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Shazia Ilmi vs Rajdeep Sardesai & Ors in CS(OS) 632/2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:2325 that was reserved on 13.11.2024 and then finally pronounced on 4.4.2025 has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on BJP leader Shazia Ilmi for suppressing key facts in her defamation suit against India Today journalist Rajdeep Sardesai. We need to note that the defamation suit was filed by Shazia against Rajdeep over his comments on X (formerly Twitter) pertaining to a video that was recorded after she had left a debate show on the India Today channel. It must also be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora partly allowed an application that had been moved by Shazia for interim relief in her suit. However, while adding a caveat, it also imposed costs on Shazia on finding that some tweets were suppressed by her in the plea.
At the very outset, this brilliant judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora of Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking interim injunction against the Defendants.”
As we see, the Bench then specifies in para 2 stating that, “This Court vide order dated 13.08.2024 had passed an ad-interim injunction directing Defendant No. 1 to take down the impugned video 1 from his personal X handle pending adjudication of the captioned application. Similarly, Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 were also directed to take down the impugned video from their respective social media platform, handles and websites, until the final disposal of the captioned application. Further the Defendant No.4 was directed to take down the impugned video uploaded on its platform. By this judgment, this Court will now proceed to finally decide the captioned application.”
Simply put, the Bench discloses in para 3 that, “The underlying suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking inter alia relief of permanent injunction against the Defendants, thereby restraining them from making, publishing, circulating objectionable, offensive, ex facie false and allegedly doctored video outraging Plaintiff’s modesty in the privacy of her home, followed by public statement (i.e., Quote Tweet circulated by Defendant No. 1 on his personal X handle) with malicious intent, to lower the dignity of the Plaintiff and cast a slur on her temperament and character, which as per the Plaintiff is defamatory. The Plaintiff further seeks compensation in terms of damages on account of loss of reputation and dignity and public ridicule due to the willful and malicious publication and circulation of defamatory doctored video and malicious statement by the Defendants.”
Facts germane for deciding the captioned application garnered from the pleadings
Do note, the Bench notes in para 4 that, “The Plaintiff is presently a politician and National Spokesperson of a National political party. The Plaintiff was earlier a journalist and had worked in that capacity for more than 15 years.”
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 5 that, “The Defendant No.1 is a well-recognised news anchor and journalist and presently works with Defendant No. 2 a TV Network. The Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 are social media account handlers and/or news agencies. Defendant No.11 is unknown person(s), who as per the Plaintiff have circulated the impugned video. Defendant No.12 is the cameraman of the Defendant No.2, who is part of the controversy which is subject matter of the underlying suit and captioned application.”
Do also note, the Bench notes in para 6 that, “Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are social media platforms on which the users have posted the impugned video and published reports and/or comments and/or stories pertaining to the Plaintiff.”
Version of the Plaintiff as per the plaint
It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 7 that, “The Plaintiff is aggrieved by the incident which occurred at her residence with Defendant No. 12 (cameraman of Defendant No. 2) on 26.07.2024 in the late evening, after she withdrew her participation from a live debate programme (‘live debate’) hosted by Defendant No.1 premised on ‘Kargil Diwas’ and ‘Agniveers’, telecasted at 9:00 PM on India Today Television (i.e., Defendant No.2).
7.1. The Plaintiff was invited as a panelist on the above-said live debate. The Plaintiff participated in the said live debate, virtually from her residence and in this regard, Plaintiff permitted the Defendant No.12 and other crew members, who were part of the Production Control Room (PCR) team of the Defendant No.2 to visit her residence in order to record her opinion on subject matter of the live debate. The Plaintiff designated a specific portion of her residence to be included in the shooting frame and further communicated her preference to limit the shooting frame during the live debate to her head and upper body only. It is stated that the Plaintiff had a cast on her leg and did not want the same to be shown as a part of the shooting frame.
7.2. The live debate was aired at about 9 PM. During the live debate it is alleged that the Defendant No.1 disagreed with the Plaintiff on certain aspects of the subject matter of live debate and started constantly heckling and speaking over the Plaintiff. It is stated that the Plaintiff held her ground and after sometime the Defendant No.1 asked the PCR of the Defendant No.2 to ‘put her voice down’ i.e., lowering the voice/volume of the Plaintiff (down) during the live debate.
7.3. It is stated that after the Plaintiff was put on mute during the live debate on the instructions of Defendant No.1, she decided to discontinue with her participation in the live debate and to move out of the said debate. It is stated that the Plaintiff made it abundantly clear by her gestures and actions that she would like to end her participation in the live debate. It is stated that Plaintiff had a cast on her leg due to a sprain and when she decided to discontinue and move out of the live debate, she removed her mike which was attached to her shirt and she had to hobble away from the chair on which she was seated.
7.4. It is stated that however, Defendant No.12 continued to unauthorizedly video record the Plaintiff in the awkward situation i.e., while she was removing the mike; hobbling to get out of the chair. It is stated that despite Plaintiff’s request to Defendant No. 12 to stop recording, he did not accede to said request of the Plaintiff and continued to record the Plaintiff in awkward situation in the confines of her house.
7.5. The Plaintiff contends that the video recording (Details are given at Para 3.20 of the Plaint) which was done after she conveyed her intent to withdraw from the live debate, was unauthorized, without the consent of the Plaintiff (‘impugned video’) and was a blatant violation of her right to privacy.
7.6. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant No.1 on 27.07.2024 at 8:33 A.M. published a Quote Tweet on his personal X handle (‘Impugned Quote Tweet’) in connivance with Defendant No.2, which is defamatory and lowers the reputation of the Plaintiff. It is stated that the impugned video published along with the said Impugned Quote Tweet was illegally recorded by Defendant No. 12 at the instruction of the PCR of Defendant No. 2, even after she had exited the live debate. It is stated that the impugned video has been published by the Defendant No.1 on his personal X handle without obtaining prior consent of the Plaintiff.
7.7. The Plaintiff contends that it is a matter of record that the [part of] said impugned video published by the Defendant No.1 with his Impugned Quote Tweet does not form part of the live debate, which was aired on 26.07.2024 on National Television. It is stated that, therefore, the said impugned video was provided by the Defendant No.2 to the Defendant No.1 with the sole intention to attack and defame the Plaintiff, while casting slur on her.
7.8. It is stated that due to the actions of the Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 12, the other Defendants i.e., Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 also published various posts, news articles and/or impugned video on various social media platforms, which tarnishes the image and reputation of the Plaintiff. It is stated that because of the said Impugned Quote Tweet of the Defendant No.1 the Plaintiff has been subjected to excessive ridicule, trolling and personal comments.
7.9. It is stated that in these facts the Plaintiff is entitled to grant of injunction and restraint order against the Defendants directing them to remove/take down all the defamatory and scurrilous content along with the impugned video of the Plaintiff.
7.10. From the pleadings as set out in the plaint and the captioned application it is apparent that the Plaintiff has two-fold grievance with respect to the Impugned Quote Tweet i.e., the text portion of the Impugned Quote Tweet and the impugned video attached and published along with the said Impugned Quote Tweet; therefore this Court would analyze the contentions of the parties qua the said Impugned Quote Tweet in context of the said two-fold grievance of the Plaintiff.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 25 that, “In view of the aforesaid findings, 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.”
Most significantly, the Bench holds in para 27 what encapsulates the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “This Court considers it apposite to set-out out the findings and directions issued above:
(i) 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 Plaintiff therefore ought to have disclosed the tweet published by her on 26.07.2024 at 10:21 PM and tweet published by her 27.07.2024 at 10:27 PM.
(ii) The Impugned Quote Tweet has to be read with Suppressed Tweet No.1 and Suppressed Tweet No.2 as they form part of the same conversation thread.
(iii) The allegation of the Plaintiff with respect to the first 22 seconds of the impugned video stating that it outrages her modesty is an afterthought, as firstly the Plaintiff did not object to/raise the said grievance in the Suppressed Tweet No.1, which was published right after the live debate; and secondly the said video footage was telecasted on National Television contemporaneously on the date of live debate.
(iv) The contention of the Plaintiff that recording and publishing the impugned video (vis-à-vis 18 seconds after she withdrew from the live debate and moved out of the shooting frame) violates her right to privacy is duly made out in the facts of this case; and this Court finds that indeed the right of privacy of the Plaintiff was violated; but only with respect to the 18 seconds footage (starting at 23 seconds and ending at 40 seconds) in the impugned video; as the Plaintiff did not consent to the said recording. Therefore, the Defendant No.1 and 2 could not have recorded or used the said portion of the impugned video in absence of the express consent from the Plaintiff and consequently the order dated 13.08.2024 directing removal of the impugned video is hereby confirmed till the disposal of the suit.
(v) The Defendant No.1 can retain the first part of the text portion of the Impugned Quote Tweet as there are no objections raised by the Plaintiff qua the said text portion.
(vi) 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.
(vii) Further comments of the Defendant No.1 in the second part of the text portion of the Impugned Quote Tweet i.e., abuse our video journalist and no excuse for bad behaviour can be retained by the Defendant No.1 as the same are protected by defence of truth, being substantially correct.
(viii) 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.
(ix) Lastly, the order dated 13.08.2024 qua the Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 is also confirmed and they are directed to take down impugned video and/or the article published on the basis of the said impugned video.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench then directs in para 28 holding that, “Before parting this Court would like to take note of the fact that since the Plaintiff had willfully suppressed two (2) tweets which formed part of the same conversation thread of which the Impugned Quote Tweet was part of and therefore, the Plaintiff is saddled with the cost of Rs. 25,000/- payable to Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association, through the Secretary within a period of three (3) weeks. In this regard, an affidavit of compliance shall be filed within two (2) weeks thereafter.”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 29 that, “In view of the aforesaid findings and observations the application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC stands disposed of.”
Finally and for sake of clarity, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 30 that, “Needless to mention that any observation made hereinabove are prima facie in nature and only for the purpose of disposal of the captioned application and will not tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”
All told, the bottom-line of this notable judgment is that the petitioner who seeks relief from court must come to the court with clean hands. If the petitioner does not come with clean hands, then the petitioner would be liable to pay for what he/she is liable as we see in this leading case where Shazia Ilmi was slapped with Rs 25,000/- as fine for suppressing key facts from the court. No denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
