Rajat Sharma Defamation Case: Delhi Court Summons Congress Leaders Ragini Nayak, Pawan Khera & Jairam Ramesh

In a detailed pre-summoning order, JMFC Devanshi Janmeja of Saket Court held that there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the three accused under Sections 465, 469, 471, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, observing that the allegations, if taken at face value, disclosed a concerted attempt to harm Sharma’s reputation through a manipulated video circulated on social media.

The complaint stemmed from a live television debate hosted by Sharma on India TV during the counting of the 2024 Lok Sabha election results. According to Sharma, during the broadcast he made remarks praising the Congress Party’s electoral performance. He alleged that Ragini Nayak, a Congress spokesperson, twisted his comments and later falsely accused him of using a derogatory and abusive slur against her during the live show.

Sharma claimed that on June 10, 2024, Nayak posted a video clip of the debate on X (formerly Twitter) with an abusive word superimposed as a caption, falsely implying that it had been uttered by him on air. He alleged that the caption was not part of the original live telecast and had been digitally added to create a false and defamatory narrative.

The complaint further alleged that Pawan Khera and Jairam Ramesh amplified the accusation by retweeting Nayak’s post within hours, condemning Sharma and calling upon him to apologise. Sharma contended that the tweets and subsequent press conferences led millions of viewers to believe that he had abused a woman panellist on live television, triggering a wave of abusive and denigrating comments against him on social media.

During pre-summoning evidence, Sharma deposed that he had over four decades of experience in journalism and had been awarded the Padma Bhushan. He stated that nearly 67 million viewers watched the live broadcast and that no objection or complaint of abusive language was raised at the time. He further asserted that there was no “raw footage” of a live broadcast, contradicting Nayak’s claim that she had obtained such footage from India TV.

Two witnesses, Surya Prakash Khatri and Sudhanshu Mittal, supported Sharma’s version, stating that no abusive language was used during the debate and that the allegations severely damaged Sharma’s public image. Mittal, who was a panellist on the show, testified that the controversy shocked many viewers who found it difficult to believe the accusations against Sharma.

Significantly, a forensic report obtained during a Section 202 CrPC inquiry noted visible alterations in the videos uploaded by the accused, including the presence of titles and captions indicative of post-production editing. The JMFC also took note of an earlier Delhi High Court order of June 14, in a civil suit filed by Sharma, which had prima facie found that no abusive language was used during the debate and directed the accused to take down the impugned social media posts.

“While the threshold of public criticism and alleged defamatory X posts/Tweets and YouTube videos on intermediary platforms is much higher, but the individual dignity and honour of a person cannot be allowed to be defamed or disrepute brought to him on the ground of Right of Free Speech and Expression. A thin line of distinction exists between defamation and public criticism and an onerous task lies with the Courts to maintain this delicate balance between the competing claims and rights”, the bench of High Court had held.

While clarifying that it was not conducting a mini trial, the court observed that the material on record showed prima facie defamation and forgery, allegedly committed with a common intention to malign Sharma for political mileage. The accused have been summoned to appear before the court on July 27, 2026.

In a related news, in July 2024, the High Court division bench had clarified that X Corp, previously known as Twitter, was required to comply with the single judge's order. This directive stemmed from a case originating from a televised debate on India TV Channel, where Congress leaders were alleged to have misrepresented Rajat's actions and disseminated edited footage on social media. The bench had held, "You're an intermediary, you can be directed to take down. Please see, there is a judgment of Supreme Court that court will direct the intermediary to take down. It doesn't lie in your mouth to say that you won't take it down. You'll have to comply".