Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by Shazia Ilmi (plaintiff) seeking to restrain them from making, publishing, circulating objectionable, offensive, ex facie false and allegedly doctored video outraging plaintiff’s modesty in the privacy of her home, followed by public statement with malicious intent, to lower the dignity of the Plaintiff and cast a slur on her temperament and character, which as per the plaintiff is defamatory. Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., while the allegation of the video being doctored was not substantiated, and the Plaintiff failed to approach the Court with clean hands by suppressing relevant tweets from the conversation thread, the Plaintiff’s right to privacy was indeed violated with respect to an 18-second portion of the video as it was recorded without her consent after she had exited the live debate.
The plaintiff, currently serving as a politician and National Spokesperson of a prominent national political party, was previously a journalist for over 15 years and defendant 1 is a well-recognized news anchor and journalist and presently works with defendant 2 a TV Network. On 26-07-2024, the plaintiff was invited to participate in a live televised debate hosted by Defendant 1 on ‘Kargil Diwas’ and on the subject of ‘Agniveers,’ aired by Defendant 2. The plaintiff joined the debate virtually from her residence and permitted Defendant 12, cameraman of Defendant 2, and other production crew members to enter her premises for the purpose of recording. The plaintiff clearly demarcated a portion of her residence for the shooting and specified that the recording frame must be restricted to her head and upper body only, as she was wearing a leg cast and did not wish for it to be visible. During the debate, a disagreement ensued between the plaintiff and defendant 1, who allegedly began interrupting and speaking over the plaintiff, eventually instructing the production team to lower the plaintiff’s volume. Upon being muted, the plaintiff decided to exit the debate and made her intention clear through gestures and by removing her microphone.
Despite this, defendant 12 allegedly continued to record the plaintiff without her consent as she hobbled away from her seat in discomfort, thereby capturing her in an awkward and vulnerable state. The plaintiff asserted that this unauthorized video recording violated her right to privacy and was later shared on 27-07-2024 by defendant 1 through a Quote Tweet from his personal X handle, allegedly in collusion with Defendant 2. This impugned quote tweet, which included the said video and defamatory text, was not part of the live debate aired the previous day. The plaintiff claimed that the video was illicitly provided by defendant 2 to defendant 1 with the intent to defame and humiliate her. Consequently, defendant 6 to 10, comprising social media account handlers and news agencies, further circulated the impugned content. The plaintiff alleged that the Impugned Quote Tweet and the resulting online dissemination led to widespread ridicule, trolling, and reputational harm, prompting her to seek injunctive relief for the removal of the said defamatory content. The plaintiff also seeks compensation in terms of damages on account of loss of reputation and dignity.
On the aspect of privacy rights of the plaintiff vis-à-vis the impugned video, the Court noted that the Plaintiff had indeed consented to the video recording of her participation in a live debate from her home. Therefore, the first 22 seconds of the impugned 40-second video—wherein she is seen removing her microphone and walking away were held not to violate her privacy, as these actions were visible during the live telecast and she raised no immediate objection. The Court found that she had implicitly waived her privacy rights for this portion by not instructing the recording to be stopped and by continuing to remain in the frame.
However, the remaining 18 seconds of the video, captured after she exited the shooting frame, showed parts of her residence, including her bedroom, and portrayed her in a private state, distinct from her public persona during the debate. The Court held that this portion violated her right to privacy, as her consent to being recorded had ceased once she withdrew from the debate. Relying on precedents like Gobind v. State of MP, (1975) 2 SCC 148 and R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632, the Court concluded that the Defendants had no authority to use or disseminate this footage without her explicit consent. Therefore, the interim order restraining the circulation of this 18-second clip was confirmed.
The Court examined the second part of a quote tweet posted by Defendant No. 1, evaluating whether its statements could be protected under the defence of truth in a defamation claim. The impugned statements included phrases like “chuck the mike,” “throw him out of your house,” “abuse our video journalist,” and “no excuse for bad behaviour.” After reviewing the relevant video footage, the Court found that the claims regarding “chuck the mike” and “throw him out” were not substantially correct. The footage showed the Plaintiff removing the microphone without any force and merely asking the journalist to leave without any physical act of throwing him out. These comments, being exaggerated and misleading, were held not protected by the defence of truth and appeared intended to sensationalize the incident.
However, the Court found that the comments stating that the plaintiff “abused” the video journalist and showed “bad behaviour” were prima facie saved by the defence of truth, as the tone and language used by the plaintiff in the video fit the dictionary definition of “abuse.” Thus, those particular observations were upheld as defensible. The Court also held that the norms of journalistic conduct did not apply to defendant No. 1’s quote tweet since it was a personal comment, not a journalistic report. But for defendants 6 to 9, who published the tweet and video as news articles without verifying facts, journalistic norms were applicable. Consequently, they were directed to take down the impugned video and related articles.
The Court noted that in cases of alleged defamation on social media, especially those arising from conversation threads, it is imperative for the plaintiff to disclose the complete conversation, including her own tweets or comments, and approach the Court with clean hands. In the present case, the plaintiff was required to place on record her own tweets dated which she failed to do. The Court further observed that the impugned Quote Tweet must be read in conjunction with Suppressed Tweet No.1 and Suppressed Tweet No.2 as they are all part of the same conversation thread. With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim that the first 22 seconds of the impugned video outraged her modesty, the Court found this to be an afterthought, as she neither raised such grievance in the Suppressed Tweet No.1 nor objected to the footage, which had already been broadcast on national television on the same date as the live debate.
The Court held that the plaintiff’s right to privacy was indeed violated, but only with respect to the 18-second portion of the video (from 23 to 40 seconds), which captured her after she had withdrawn from the debate and moved out of the frame, without her express consent. Consequently, the Court confirmed its earlier order dated 13-08-2024, directing the removal of the impugned video until final adjudication of the suit.
Thus, the Court held that the Plaintiff’s claim that the video was doctored was not substantiated, with no supporting material on record and no such finding by the IT Local Commissioner. Finally, the order dated 13-08-2024 directing Defendant 6 to 10 to take down the impugned video and/or article based on it was also confirmed.
[Shazia Ilmi v. Rajdeep Sardesai, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2135, decided on 04-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Natasha Garg and Mr. Thakur Ankit Singh, Advocates for plaintiff
Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr. Anurag Mishra, Advocates for D-1, Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr. Anurag Mishra, Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Ms. Mashu Bishnoi, Advocates for D-2 and D-12, Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Yash Karunakaran and Mr. Tanuj Sharma, Advocates for D-4 (Through VC) Mr. Sauhard Alung, Advocate for D-5
