Gaurav Bhatia defamation case: Delhi High Court refuses to bar satirical posts but orders takedown of obscene posts

The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that satirical and humorous social media posts about the recent television appearance of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia will not amount to an invasion of his privacy [Gaurav Bhatia v Samajwadi Party Media Cell and Ors].

Justice Amit Bansal noted that it has to be borne in mind that the satirical posts were occasioned on account of Bhatia's own appearance on a live show wearing Kurta and shorts.

"While the words used in the impugned posts may appear to be defamatory by themselves, it has to be borne in mind that the impugned posts were occasioned on account of the plaintiff’s appearance, as noted above, during a live telecast and, on a prima facie view, appear to be satirical, humorous and in the nature of hyperbole. Further, there is no invasion of privacy of the plaintiff as he voluntarily chose to be a part of a live television debate from his place of residence in such an attire," the Court observed.

Further, the Court observed that the threshold for defamation in respect of public figures or politically exposed persons should be higher.

"No doubt the actions of such individuals are more often under scrutiny and prone to public criticism, however, they also have the benefit of a stage/ media as well as the ability to counter any statement made against him."

However, the Court added that "obscene and sexually suggestive language under the guise of free speech cannot be permissible under any circumstances".

Justice Bansal said that the posts made by two defendants (Samajwadi Party Media Cell and an X handle @activistsandeep) clearly fall in that category and cannot be justified.

Therefore, the Court ordered the take-down of such content.

It also ordered the blocking of defamatory posts made by a Twitter user named Vish Patel, following the Court hearing in Bhatia's suit on September 23.

The post showed a morphed image of Bhatia with objectionable text.

Bhatia had sought the blocking or take-down of nearly two dozen links or posts from Twitter and YouTube. This included content published by Newslaundry, journalist Abhisar Sharma, as well as politicians Ragini Nayak, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Rajkumar Bhati, Surendra Rajput and Srinivas BV.

In its order, the Court noted that many of these defendants are "members and representatives of rival political parties, news media platforms, social and political commentators and social media personalities who regularly engage in public discourse sharing their personal and political views with the public".

Hence, the Court refrained from granting an an ex-parte injunction without hearing the other side.

"Therefore, at this stage, the Court is not inclined to grant an ex-parte ad interim injunction against the defendants qua their respective posts. In my prima facie view, it would only be reasonable to give an opportunity to the defendants to present their case including the defence of ‘fair comment’ that they might take in support of their posts," the Court said.

Ultimately, the Court issued summons on the suit and the notice on the interim relief application and listed the case for further hearing on November 19.

Advocates Raghav Awasthi, Simran Brar, Mukesh Sharma, Neelmani Guha, Vaibhav Dabas, Vikas Tiwari and Ruhi Ansari appeared for Gaurav Bhatia.

Advocates Mamta Rani Jha, Shruttima Ehersa, Rohan Ahuja, Diya Viswanath and Aiswarya Debadarshini appeared for Google.

[Read Order]