Defamation Case Against Saurabh Bhardwaj: Delhi Court Restrains Minister Pravesh Verma From Altering Social Media Posts

A Delhi court has restrained Delhi Cabinet Minister Pravesh Verma, his associates and co-administrators from deleting, hiding, editing or otherwise altering specified social media posts in the defamation case filed by him against AAP leader Saurabh Bhardwaj.

The order was passed by ACJM-03, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, Neha Mittal, on September 1, 2026, in the complaint filed by Parvesh Sahib Singh.

The court was considering the question of cognizance in the complaint. However, the immediate order concerned an application filed by Saurabh Bhardwaj, the proposed accused, under Section 94 BNSS seeking preservation of digital evidence that is stated to be available on social media accounts belonging to the complainant and his associates.

Saurabh Bhardwaj sought preservation of Social Media evidence

Through the Section 94 BNSS application, Bhardwaj's side sought an interim direction restraining Pravesh Verma, his associates and co-administrators from deleting, deactivating, hiding, restricting access to, editing or otherwise altering posts, profiles, photographs and reels.

The proposed accused argued that the application for preservation of digital evidence could become ineffective if the material was deleted or altered before the court finally decided the application.

It was argued that the complainant or persons associated with him could modify the specified material even before the court had an opportunity to decide the preservation application on the merits.

The complainant's counsel opposed the interim request, primarily contending that the proposed accused had no locus to move the application at the pre-cognizance stage.

Court leaves question of Locus open

The Court did not decide at this stage whether Saurabh Bhardwaj had the locus to file the Section 94 BNSS application.

The court noted that the complainant had sought an opportunity to file a reply and that such an opportunity had been granted. In view of this, the court expressly refrained from giving any opinion on the locus issue at this stage.

The court nevertheless found that the circumstances warranted interim protection of the digital evidence.

The Court remarked: “Ordinarily, a party seeking interim relief is required to atleast prima facie show its locus, but the present case is one with peculiar circumstances as the digital evidence sought to be preserved is completely within the reach of the complainant and his associates only. They can access the data at any time and delete or edit it. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that interim relief is required to be given till the disposal of the present application on merits.”

Following this finding, the court passed an interim direction restraining Pravesh Verma, his associates and co-administrators from deleting, deactivating, hiding, restricting access to, editing or otherwise altering the social media material related to the defamation case.

The restraint covers the posts, profiles, photographs and reels specified in Bhardwaj’s application and will remain operative until the next date of hearing.

In addition to restraining the complainant and persons associated with him from altering the specified content, the court issued directions to the social media platforms concerned.

Meta Platform Inc. and X Corp. have been directed to preserve the posts identified in Bhardwaj's application along with associated media files, metadata, server logs, registration records and IP history.

The preservation direction will remain in force until the next date of hearing.

The September 1 order records that arguments on the point of cognizance had already been advanced on behalf of the proposed accused. Certain judgments were also filed in support of those arguments, with copies supplied to the complainant's side.

The court directed counsel for the complainant to advance further rebuttal arguments on cognizance on the next date.

The matter has now been listed for reply and arguments on the application under Section 94 BNSS, along with further rebuttal arguments on the issue of cognizance.

The matter will be heard next on September 10.

Case Title: Parvesh Sahib Singh vs Saurabh Bhardwaj