Delhi High Court Pulls Up CJP Leaders Over Posts Against Gaurav Bhatia, Suggests Voluntary Takedown

The Delhi High Court on Thursday heard BJP leader and senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia’s ₹2-crore defamation case against Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), its founder Abhijit Dipke, and spokesperson Saurav Das and co-convenor Ashutosh Ranka over an AI-generated social media post allegedly attributing defamatory remarks to Bhatia.

The bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela pulled up the CJP leaders observing that “attacking like this without verifying is not correct” and suggesting that the posts against Sr. Adv. Bhatia be voluntarily taken down.

Court noted that while the original AI-generated post had already been taken down, subsequent posts by the defendants remained in question. It asked the defendants to consider removing those posts as well and file their replies. Bhatia will then be asked to respond to their stand.

Sr. Adv. Bhatia appeared in person in the matter.

The case stems from a social media post shared by Das, which allegedly portrayed Bhatia as calling Swatantra Bhardwaj a “dimagi naxal” and accusing him of having “casteist poison” in him.

Bhatia has denied making the remarks and has contended that the statements were falsely attributed to him.

During the hearing, Bhatia described the matter as one of “aggravated defamation”, arguing that the posts could not remain on the internet as the defendants have a large number of followers.

“These posts can’t be on the internet. They have millions of followers. It is causing damage to my image by every minute,” Bhatia submitted.

He told the court that he had already given the defendants an opportunity to resolve the issue and asked them to take instructions on whether they were willing to voluntarily take down the posts.

However, counsel for the defendants claimed that they had not received the plaint copy.

Bhatia further submitted that he was a “law-abiding citizen” and alleged that the other side had forged a picture and placed the logo of a news agency on it to give the content credibility.

Court, however, questioned Bhatia’s decision to array Dipke and CJP as parties to the suit.

Justice Gedela asked how Dipke and CJP had been made parties and what they had done in the matter.

Counsel appearing for Dipke submitted that there was “not a single tweet” by him and pointed out that the relief sought in the suit was only against defendants Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka.

Bhatia responded that the court could examine the tweets and alleged that an “ecosystem” had emerged targeting him after he complained about the publication of the allegedly false picture.

Justice Gedela then told Bhatia: Please, Mr. Bhatia, take it that we’ve seen it. Show us what is against Dipke. Let’s talk about you only. How has it militated against you personally? This is a defamation case filed by you personally.

At one point, an altercation took place between the counsels. Court cautioned that it would pass over the matter if such exchanges continued in the courtroom.

Justice Gedela stressed: I’ve said what I wanted in the first five minutes.

Addressing the defendants, court observed that they were young and asked them, off the record, whether they wanted to spend their time in court instead of their studies.

Court also observed that while the defendants may have anxieties, there was a proper way to express them.

“You are youngsters. You may have anxieties. But attacking like this without verifying is not correct. There is a way to protest,” court observed.

Court further said it did not want to pass a takedown order at this stage and instead asked the defendants to consider voluntarily removing the posts.

Court asked counsel for CJP, Das, Dipke and Ranka to take instructions on whether they were willing to take down the posts and inform the court during the day.

The Defamation Plea

Bhatia’s plea seeks ₹2 crore in damages from the defendants, besides permanent and mandatory injunctions.

The dispute arose after Bhatia objected to the social media post and sought its removal and an unconditional apology. The post was subsequently deleted, but Bhatia has maintained that no apology was issued.

Das later said that the graphic was AI-generated.

The controversy had arisen in the backdrop of the dispute involving Bhardwaj and an alleged assault on Sanjay Kumar, the father of CJP supporter Nishu Aazad, at Jantar Mantar in Delhi.

In his plea, Bhatia also alleged that the September 5 incident was not an isolated instance but part of a broader pattern of online publications intended to ridicule, demean and lower the reputation of individuals.

The plea alleges that Das has previously published posts attacking the judiciary. It cites a December 30, 2025 post concerning Umar Khalid, in which Das allegedly described Khalid’s imprisonment as involving “false, frivolous charges” and called it “a permanent blot on India’s judiciary”.

Bhatia has alleged that such posts go beyond criticism of individual judicial orders and amount to broader attacks on the institution.

The plea further refers to a post allegedly published by Dipke on September 6, 2026, concerning retired Air Marshal Jitendra Mishra and the Ram Mandir Trust. Bhatia alleges that the post contained a manipulated video and used the expression “dharam ke thekedaar”.

These instances have been cited by Bhatia to allege a “consistent propensity” among the defendants to use social media to publish content that is false, misleading, derogatory or insulting.

Case Title: Gaurav Bhatia vs. Saurav Das and Others

Hearing Date: September 10, 2026

Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela