Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Friday, 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 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 court held. 

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.

The defendants, represented by Advocate Hrishikesh Baruah, argued that Shazia had not approached the court with clean hands, as she had allegedly suppressed two tweets relevant to the case. It was contended that these tweets formed part of the same conversation thread as the impugned quote tweet and should not be read in isolation. It was further asserted that Shazia did not initially object to the telecast of the footage and failed to provide evidence proving that the video had been doctored. It was asserted that the impugned video also depicted Shazia misbehaving with the cameraman, a fact she had omitted in her plaint.

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 rejected the defendants’ argument that the footage resulted from a technical lag.. 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. 

“This Court has further observed that since there was no consent, the recording and/or publishing of the 18 seconds of the impugned video is violative of the right of privacy of the Plaintiff”, the court added. 

Regarding the defamation claim, the court examined the contents of the impugned quote tweet. The tweet contained statements alleging that Shazia “chucked the mike,” “abused the video journalist,” and “threw him out of her house.” Upon reviewing the video footage, the court found that the statement about throwing the cameraman out was exaggerated and misleading. However, the claim that Shazia had verbally abused the cameraman was deemed substantially correct and protected under the defense of truth.

“Since, ‘X’ is a conversational medium and the reader would spend limited time viewing the comment and the video, the impression formed on the basis of the comment and video would be instantaneous… However, this Court having viewed the impugned video and having perused the affidavit finds that Defendant No. 1 did not have a reasonable basis for making these impugned comments i.e., ‘chuck the mike’ and ‘throw him out of your house”, the court opined. 

Finally, the court determined that while Shazia’s initial reaction did not indicate that the video was doctored, her claim of manipulation lacked supporting evidence. “Based on the main report and post script, there is insufficient evidence to conclusively state that impugned video has been doctored”, the court opined. 

Consequently, the court passed the following directions: 
1. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled to publish or circulated the impugned video as it consists of an 18 seconds video footage for which there was no consent of the Plaintiff for its recording or publication.
2. this Court is of the considered opinion that in the Impugned Quote Tweet, the comments ‘chuck the mike’ and ‘throw him out of your house’ are not justified and are liable to be removed. 
3. Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 as well are directed to take down the impugned video from their respective social media platforms, handles and websites, until the final disposal of the underlying suit. 

For Plaintiff: Advocates Natasha Garg and Thakur Ankit Singh
For Defendant: Advocates Hrishikesh Baruah, Anurag Mishra, Utkarsh Dwivedi, Mashu Bishnoi, Varun Pathak, Yash Karunakaran, Tanuj Sharma and Sauhard Alung
Case Title: Shazia Ilmi v Rajdeep Sardesai (2025:DHC:2325)