Shama Mohamed Misled Court, Says Delhi HC; ₹5K Cost Imposed in Defamation Case Against BJP’s Sanju Verma

 The Delhi High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on National Spokesperson for the Indian National Congress (INC), Shama Mohamed, for misleading the court in connection with a defamation suit filed by her against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Sanju Verma.

A bench led by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, in its order, observed: "The Court deems it appropriate to direct for imposition of cost. The cost of ₹5,000 shall be paid by learned counsel for the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 before the next date of hearing."

The defamation case was filed by the Congress leader, alleging Sanju Verma made defamatory statements about her on August 20, 2024, during a televised debate concerning an incident at RG Kar Hospital in West Bengal and the state’s response. TV-18 hosted this debate, which subsequently circulated on social media platforms managed by Twitter and Google.

While granting Mohamed an ex parte injunction, the High Court had directed Twitter to delete the allegedly defamatory posts that, according to her, harmed her reputation.

Later, BJP leader Sanju Verma’s advocates Raghav Awasthi, Simran Brar and Tanya Lal filed two applications: one seeking vacation of the injunction order and another urging the court to reject or return the plaint on the grounds of suppression of material facts and non-disclosure of cause of action.

When the matter came up before the Joint Registrar, it was noted that Mohamed had failed to file a reply."Admittedly, no replication till today has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the defendant to close the right of the plaintiff to file replication is found to be premature. The application is accordingly dismissed as being premature."

The Joint Registrar had also recorded that Shama Mohamed had not filed her reply within 45 days for defendant no.1, Sanju Verma. "Accordingly, the pleadings qua defendant no.1 stand completed," the order had stated.

However, during the next hearing before Justice Kaurav on July 8, Mohamed’s counsel submitted that the matter was listed before the main Court on August 22 by the Learned Joint Registrar, even though the Court had ordered the matter to be listed before it for consideration of the pending applications. It is pertinent to note that when the matter was called out, the order of the Joint Registrar had not been uploaded. The matter was thereafter passed over. When the matter was called out again, Ms. Simran Brar submitted post verification from the Joint Registrar's office that the date of 22nd August had been given for completion of pleadings and not for any other purpose. Mr. Awasthi also took the Court through the order dated 13th May 2025 and submitted that the aforesaid applications had as a matter of fact been listed on the said date before the Court.

This para I added !

In view of this, the High Court remarked, "The Court fails to understand how the aforesaid date would have any relevance when the Court had specifically directed for listing of this matter before it for consideration."

The counsel later tendered an apology and submitted that, due to some misunderstanding, she had been unable to prepare the matter.

The matter will now be heard on August 6, 2025.

Case Title: DR SHAMA MOHAMED versus SMT SANJU VERMA AND ORS

Read order here:

Read order here: