Shazia Ilmi vs Rajdeep Sardesai: Why Delhi HC slapped costs of Rs 25,000 on BJP spokesperson

In Ilmi’s defamation case against Sardesai, court ruled there was invasion of her privacy regarding footage recorded without her consent but also noted she had suppressed her tweets.

Shazia Ilmi (left) and Rajdeep Sardesai | Photos: ANI & Getty Images

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Friday imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on BJP spokesperson Shazia Ilmi for “willfully” suppressing information in a case of defamation and violation of privacy against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai.

The controversy arose in the wake of Ilmi’s participation in a live debate hosted by Sardesai on India Today news channel last year on ‘Kargil Diwas’ and ‘Agniveers’. Ilmi had left the debate midway, claiming that her mic was cut-off. Sardesai subsequently put up a video on his X handle in which Ilmi was seen removing her mic and walking out of the frame, and alleged in his post that she had abused a video journalist during the debate.

Ilmi claimed that the footage was doctored and a violation of her privacy as she had not consented to its recording or usage.

The high court bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that there was an invasion of Ilmi’s privacy as the channel and Sardesai were not supposed to use the 18-second portion of the video without Ilmi’s express consent, and directed its removal from social media.

Last year too, the Delhi High Court had passed a temporary or ad-interim injunction directing Sardesai to take down the allegedly defamatory video from his personal X handle, while the case was yet to be decided. The court had also directed the takedown of the video from the respective social media platforms, handles and websites where it was circulated, until the case was finally disposed of.

Ilmi in her plea sought a permanent injunction against Sardesai which would restrain him from publishing or circulating an objectionable, offensive and “allegedly doctored” video.

She also said he had given a public statement, by way of a quote tweet, with malicious intent, to lower her dignity and “cast a slur on her temperament and character,” which according to Ilmi was also defamatory in nature. Subsequently, she sought damages for loss of reputation, dignity and public ridicule.

By way of her plea, Ilmi also told the court that she worked as a journalist for more than 15 years, and drew its attention to the series of events that transpired during the show.

Shazia Ilmi’s case

According to Ilmi, she was invited as a panellist for the live debate and agreed to participate, although virtually, from her residence. Subsequently, she allowed the cameraman and other crew members to visit her residence and record her views on the subject.

However, Ilmi claimed she also communicated to the crew her preference to confine the shooting frame to her head and upper body only, while adding that she had a cast on her leg, which she didn’t want to be seen.

During the live debate which was being aired on TV, Ilmi said that Sardesai not only disagreed with her views but also started heckling and speaking over her. Shortly after, he allegedly told the PCR to lower her voice/volume during the live debate.

After Ilmi was allegedly muted, she decided to exit the debate and she said she made it abundantly clear by her gestures that she would like to end her participation.

Since she had a cast on her leg at the time, she removed her mic which was attached to her shirt and had to hobble away from the chair she was seated on. However, she said, the cameraman continued to unauthorisedly record her in that “awkward situation”.

Terming this a blatant violation of her privacy, she said that the very next day, Sardesai published a quote tweet on X, “in connivance with the India Today group”, which she was defamatory and lowered her reputation.

She also contended that she was subjected to excessive ridicule, trolling and personal comments after this, as Sardesai had used phrases like “just not done” and “no excuse for bad behaviour” in his post, which portrayed her in a bad light.

Relying on paragraph 5 (ii) of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct 22nd edition, published by the Press Council of India, which states that “truth is no defence for publishing derogatory, scurrilous and defamatory material against a private citizen where no public interest is involved,” Ilmi argued that since the altercation between her and Sardesai had no public interest element, he could not plead the defence of truth, as is usually done in defamation cases.

High court view

When the case came back before the high court this year, it noted that Sardesai’s quote tweet was not a journalistic piece of news published by him, as was pleaded in court.

“This court finds that the impugned quote tweet of defendant no. 1 would not be covered by the norms of journalistic conduct as it was not being published as a journalistic piece of news and is in the nature of personal comment,” the court noted in its 42-page ruling.

The court also noted that social media account handlers and news agencies that had shared the post and claimed themselves to be internet-based news websites, would certainly be governed by journalistic norms, and were obliged to carry out verification before reposting the tweet and video.

Directing these websites and agencies to take down the content, the court said “the Plaintiff has rightly relied upon the norms of journalistic conduct published by Press Council of India which requires the journalist to verify the story from the concerned parties before reporting on the same”.

While the court ruled that Sardesai was not justified in saying (in his tweet) that Ilmi had “chucked the mic” and “thrown” the video journalist out of her house, his comments in the second part of his post, where he accuses Ilmi of abusing the video journalist, can be retained as it is “protected by defence of truth, being substantially correct”.

Rejecting Ilmi’s argument that the video was doctored, the court said that “based on the main report and post script, there is insufficient evidence to conclusively state that impugned video has been doctored”.

By way of its ruling, the court also noted that India Today and Sardesai were not entitled to publish or circulate the video as it consisted of 18 seconds of footage for which there was no consent.

The court also clarified that when one is alleging defamation on social media platforms arising out of a conversation thread, they must “mandatorily disclose the full conversation thread”, including their own tweets or comments, while ensuring they approach the court with clean hands.

Taking note of the fact that Ilmi suppressed information about her own tweets, which were also part of the same conversation thread on X, the court imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on her.

“Before parting, this court would like to take note of the fact that 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, through the secretary within a period of three (3) weeks,” it said.

(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)