Delhi HC Declines BJP’s Sanju Verma Plea to Dismiss Congress Leader Shama Mohamed’s Defamation Case

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application moved by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Sanju Verma seeking rejection of the civil defamation suit filed by Congress spokesperson Dr. Shama Mohamed.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order while hearing Verma’s application under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The BJP leader had contended that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that no cause of action had arisen to maintain the suit.

Dismissing the application, Justice Kaurav observed that the issues raised by the defendant were matters to be examined during trial and could not form the basis for rejection of the plaint at this preliminary stage.

The case was filed by Mohamed alleging that Verma made defamatory remarks against her on August 20, 2024, during a televised debate on Network 18 concerning an incident at RG Kar Hospital in West Bengal. The remarks, according to Mohamed, were then widely circulated on social media platforms run by X Corp (formerly Twitter) and Google, thereby amplifying the damage to her reputation.

Advocate Raghav Awasthi, appearing for Verma, pointed to inconsistencies in Mohamed’s pleadings. He drew the Court’s attention to the affidavit filed by the plaintiff, which mentioned her as a resident of Kerala, whereas the memo of parties in the plaint stated her residence to be in Delhi. He argued that such contradictions rendered the plaint untenable. Awasthi further contended that the Delhi High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and relied on earlier decisions of the Court in Escorts Ltd. v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia and Arvind Kejriwal v. State.

Counsel for Mohamed countered that the Kerala reference was an inadvertent error and that documents such as the lease deed and memo of parties clearly established her residence in Delhi. It was argued that the defamatory remarks were accessible in Delhi, harmed her reputation there, and that both X Corp and Google had a presence within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Holding that the cause of action arose with the remarks made on August 20, 2024, the Court said, “A bare perusal of the plaint would indicate that the cause of action arose on 20.08.2024, when defendant No. 1 made the alleged defamatory statements against the plaintiff, on the show organized by defendant No. 2. The said debate was shared by various third parties, who began to share the said alleged defamatory statements against the plaintiff on the social media platforms operated by defendant Nos. 3 and 4.”

 Court further remarked, "If the aforesaid recital is perused in the right perspective, it appears that the plaint on the face of it fulfils the necessary ingredients of the pleadings as required under Order VI and Order VII Rule 1(e) of the CPC.”

On the controversy regarding the plaintiff’s residence, Justice Kaurav observed that while Mohamed’s affidavit mentioned both Kerala and Delhi, the documents and pleadings made it clear that she resides in Delhi as well. “On the purported inconsistency with respect to the contents of the plaint and the affidavit of the plaintiff, the same seems to be that the plaintiff has residences both in Delhi and in Kerala and that the affidavit mentioned both. But when the affidavit is considered in the right perspective, the same also mentions that the plaintiff also resides at Delhi.”

 Court added that Mohamed had specifically pleaded that she became aware of the defamatory content in Delhi and that it was accessible to thousands of individuals there, thereby causing potential harm to her reputation.

The judge emphasized that a detailed determination of where the maximum reputational harm occurred or whether it was suffered in the place where the defendant resides is a matter for trial.

“At this stage, the averments in the plaint are to be treated as gospel truth and on this basis, the Court is satisfied that the prima facie ingredients for invoking its territorial jurisdiction are met… Accordingly, she is entitled to institute the present suit here.”

With these observations, the Court refused to reject the plaint, clearing the way for trial in the defamation case.

For Plaintiff: Mr. Abhik Chimni, Mr. Omar Hoda, Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Ms. Pranjal Abrol and Mr. Gurupal Singh, Advs.

For Defendants: Mr. Raghav Awasthi, Ms. Simran Brar and Mr. Fatehh Singh Majithia, Advs for D-1. Mr. Mrinal Bharti, Mr. Santosh Kumar and Mr. Swapnil Srivastava, Advs for D-2. Mr. Deepak Gogia, Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal and Ms. Shivangi Kohli, Advs for D-3. Mr. Neel Mason, Ms. Pragya Jain and Ms. Surabhii Katare, Advs for D-4.

Case Title: Dr. Shama Mohamed v. Smt. Sanju Verma & Ors.

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Date of Order: 06 August 2025