Delhi: Senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai has approached the Delhi High Court, challenging a single judge’s ruling in a defamation case filed by BJP leader Shazia Ilmi.
The appeal comes after the earlier verdict ordered Sardesai to remove a video he posted on social media platform ‘X’ (formerly Twitter), in which Ilmi was alleged to have abused a video journalist during a televised debate on India Today.
The incident occurred during a heated panel discussion on the Agniveer scheme, where Ilmi exited the debate midway, alleging her microphone was muted deliberately. Sardesai subsequently tweeted a video along with a comment, claiming Ilmi had thrown the mike and verbally abused the journalist. The tweet gained rapid traction, raising concerns about both defamation and journalistic accountability.
The single judge’s ruling found that the portion of the video showing Ilmi leaving the debate and entering her home violated her right to privacy, as her consent to be filmed ended when she stepped out of the live debate and frame. The Court allowed Sardesai to retain some parts of his tweet but ordered him to take down the footage showing Ilmi after she left the shooting setup.
The judge noted that Sardesai’s use of the phrase “chuck the mike” was factually incorrect and misleading, stating it had no basis in the actual video footage. The judgment emphasized that due to Sardesai’s stature and large following, his statements held significant influence and could be perceived as factual reporting, even when they weren’t published in a formal journalistic context.
While Sardesai was allowed to retain parts of his tweet under the defence of truth, the judge ruled the tweet overall could not be shielded by the Norms of Journalistic Conduct, as it was a personal comment and not a published news report.
Interestingly, the court imposed ₹25,000 in costs on Ilmi for suppressing key tweets that were part of the original conversation thread. These tweets, which were not disclosed during initial proceedings, were deemed relevant to the case’s context.
In response, Sardesai’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, has now appealed the decision before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar. The bench has renotified the matter for hearing in the first week of July, after the court’s summer recess. The court has also permitted Sardesai to file the contested video in a pen drive as part of the official record.
The legal tussle now brings critical questions to the fore—about the balance between privacy and public interest, the scope of consent in televised debates, and the responsibilities of journalists when commenting on public figures. As the matter heads for a larger bench review, it’s set to become a precedent-setting case in the evolving landscape of digital journalism and personal privacy.
