Rajdeep Sardesai Withdraws Appeal Filed Before Delhi HC Challenging Relief to BJP’s Shazia Ilmi

Journalist Rajdeep Sardesai on Tuesday withdrew his appeal filed before the Delhi High Court, which challenged a single judge’s order granting partial relief to BJP National Spokesperson Shazia Ilmi in a defamation suit filed against him.

The withdrawal came after a division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar expressed reluctance to interfere in the matter.

Notably, Sardesai had filed the appeal before the High Court on May 30, challenging the single judge’s order in the defamation case filed against him by Ilmi.

Single Judge Ruling

On April 4, the High Court granted part relief to BJP National Spokesperson Shazia Ilmi in a defamation suit filed by her against Journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, India Today Television, along with other media entities and social media users.

The case arose from the dissemination of a contentious video posted by Sardesai that captured Shazia in an unguarded moment following a televised debate.

The bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, while directing the removal of the controversial 18-second footage, also imposed an INR 25,000 cost on Shazia for suppressing tweets. “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."

The Incident

Shazia participated in a live debate on ‘Kargil Diwas’ and ‘Agniveers’, which was broadcast by India Today. She joined the debate remotely from her residence and permitted a cameraman, Jagannath (Defendant No.12), to record from a designated area, explicitly instructing him to exclude her injured leg from the frame. During the discussion, Rajdeep allegedly heckled Shazia, leading to her microphone being muted. Following this, she chose to withdraw from the debate and expressed her intention to leave.

Despite her withdrawal, Jagannath continued recording without her consent, capturing her while she removed her microphone and hobbled away. Shazia claimed that this footage violated her right to privacy. The next day, Rajdeep shared the video on social media with a defamatory caption, and it was further disseminated online. Shazia contended that the defendants acted maliciously, causing reputational damage, and sought legal intervention for the removal of the video.

Court's Findings

The court noted that the impugned footage was divided into three segments: the first lasting 22 seconds, the second covering 18 seconds, and the third extending to 1 minute and 5 seconds. The primary concern in Shazia’s privacy claim was the first 40-second segment, which included her exit from the debate and an altercation with the cameraman.

The court observed that Shazia did not object to the live telecast of the first 22 seconds, indicating that she had waived her privacy rights over this segment. However, the remaining 18 seconds showed portions of her residence, including her bedroom, and depicted her in a vulnerable state. The court ruled that she retained a reasonable expectation of privacy over this portion of the video.

The court emphasized, “Upon careful examination of the next 18 seconds of the impugned video, it is evident that various parts of the Plaintiff’s residence, including her bedroom, are visible in this footage… After moving out of the shooting frame, she 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 court held that the continued recording without Shazia’s consent and the subsequent publication of the footage constituted a violation of her right to privacy.

Case Title: Rajdeep Sardesai v Shazia Ilmi