Anjana Om Kashyap vs Khan Sir: Delhi HC Posts Interim Relief Plea In ₹2 Crore Defamation Case For July 2

Justice Madhu Jain did not pass any interim order on the plaintiffs' application seeking an injunction and listed the matter for further hearing on July 2.

The Court noted that defendants 1, 7, 10 and 11 had not yet filed their replies to the application for interim relief and granted them time to place their responses on record.

The suit has been instituted by Kashyap and TV Today Network against Khan Sir and other defendants, including educators Abhinay Sharma, Babita Tyagi, Arvind Bhadauriya and Manish Yadav, as well as X users SamKhasa and Abhimanyu1305. The plaintiffs have sought removal of allegedly defamatory content and damages of Rs. 2 crore.

The dispute arose after Khan Sir allegedly made remarks against Kashyap in connection with her reporting and commentary on "star teachers." The plaintiffs have objected to terms such as "bikau patrakar", "chatukar", "dalaali" and "fake news dukaan", which were allegedly used against the journalist and disseminated on online platforms.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for defendants 4 to 6 argued that there was no urgency warranting consideration by the vacation bench and submitted that the matter should be listed before the roster bench after the reopening of the High Court in July. The counsel further contended that the suit itself was not maintainable as there were different causes of action against different defendants.

Appearing for the plaintiffs, counsel for Kashyap and TV Today referred to the interim injunction application and stressed the urgency of the matter. Referring to the impugned content, counsel submitted, "Please see the language."

Counsel for defendants 4 to 6, however, argued that Kashyap had herself made false statements against educational institutions and teachers and that the defendants had merely responded to those remarks.

"She made false statement against the educational institution and teachers. They in reply said something. They are not entitled to… let the replies come on record and then ladyships can hear," the counsel submitted.

Counsel for the plaintiffs responded by arguing that the defendants had used "unparliamentary language" against Kashyap and even targeted her child.

At this stage, Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, appearing for defendant No. 8, argued that separate suits ought to have been filed against different persons and for different statements.

Meanwhile, counsel for defendants 4 to 6 remarked, "First she puts fire and then she cannot say that smoke should not hurt me."

Advocate Gauhar Mirza, appearing for defendants 2 and 3, submitted that the plaintiffs had other remedies available, including criminal proceedings.

"They can go for criminal complaint. They are making general allegations against all defendants. Very smartly they have made vague comments against everybody. I am for D 2-3. I have said nothing. We run different YouTube and social media channels. They combined everyone," he argued. Mirza further contended that the matter lacked urgency and characterised the suit as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

"I cannot even say the word she has used against me. I will play the video, unprovoked she does a debate and I cannot even say the word she uses. This is a slap suit. They are journalists. They should have some responsibility. It is no urgency at all," he submitted.

In rejoinder, counsel for Kashyap argued that even the name of her child's school had been dragged into the controversy and urged the Court to direct removal of the impugned content, submitting that "Heavens won't fall if these (content/posts) are taken down."

The controversy stems from a live debate concerning the NEET examination system, during which Kashyap allegedly criticised online teachers, describing them as "frauds" and individuals chasing views. According to the suit, Khan Sir subsequently made remarks targeting the journalist and the channel, leading to the present proceedings. The plaintiffs have sought removal of the allegedly defamatory content from online and social media platforms and have also sought damages of Rs 2 crore.

Case Title: Anjana Om Kashyap and Another vs Faisal Khan and Others

Bench: Justice Madhu Jain

Hearing Date: June 17, 2026