Delhi HC Reprimands X Over Failure To Disclose Identity Of Users In Shazia Ilmi's Case
The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, reprimanded the counsel appearing for Platform X in the defamation suit filed by BJP National Spokesperson Shazia Ilmi. The bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the advocate for X refused to accept notice during the last hearing and had not disclosed the identity of the users who violated the court's order.
The court remarked, “I will direct you to file a memo of the parties. That is the only way I see to take the information from you. I personally cannot type it out on my computer”.
The court, through a judgment dated April 7, had directed the removal of the controversial 18-second footage. The court, thereafter, through an order dated April 9, also issued notice to Platform X to disclose the identity of users who uploaded the video.
The court questioned the platform’s refusal to disclose user information, which it had previously sought to identify the individuals responsible for violating its orders. The advocate representing ‘X’ argued that they had engaged with the police authorities instead. The court responded sternly, stating that such an argument appeared to suggest that police authorities held precedence over the judiciary.
“You are saying police authorities are superior to the court. How is the court supposed to proceed against the person who violated orders of the court without information on that person?” the court remarked.
The court further criticized the platform’s suggestion to serve violators via newspaper publication, noting that this approach diluted the seriousness of the violation. “Look at the suggestions you are giving- serve them by substitution, serve them by newspaper publication. They are using your forum (platform X) to violate the orders of the court, and you are asking the court to summon them through newspaper publication”, the court highlighted.
The bench insisted on receiving names and addresses, not just social media details, and reiterated that the users must be impleaded and summoned to understand the legal implications of their actions.
In response to repeated delays, the court rejected the platform’s offer to submit information in a sealed envelope, emphasizing the impracticality of issuing a summons without knowing the identities of the violators. The advocate for ‘X’ eventually requested a 36-hour extension to obtain instructions and clarify their position.
Case Title: Shazia Ilmi v Rajdeep Sardesai (I.A. 36026/2024)