Delhi High Court slaps ₹25K cost on Shazia Ilmi for suppression of facts in case against Rajdeep Sardesai

The Delhi High Court today imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Shazia Ilmi for suppressing facts in her defamation suit against India Today journalist Rajdeep Sardesai..The defamation suit was filed by Ilmi against Sardesai over his comments on X (formerly Twitter) related to a video recorded after she had left a debate show on the India Today channel..Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora partly allowed an application moved by Ilmi for interim relief in her suit. However, it also imposed costs on Ilmi on finding that some tweets were suppressed by her in the plea."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," the Court ordered. .The Court today confirmed an earlier interim order directing the takedown of an 18-second video clip that showed an altercation between Ilmi and a video journalist. The Court reasoned that the video recording, which had continued after Ilimi walked out of the show, violated her right to privacy and cannot remain online. "The contention of the Plaintiff that recording and publishing the impugned video (vis-à-vis 18 seconds after she withdrew from the live debate and moved out of the shooting frame) violates her right to privacy is duly made out in the facts of this case; and this Court finds that indeed the right of privacy of the Plaintiff was violated; but only with respect to the 18 seconds footage (starting at 23 seconds and ending at 40 seconds) in the impugned video; as the Plaintiff did not consent to the said recording. Therefore, the Defendant No.1 and 2 could not have recorded or used the said portion of the impugned video in absence of the express consent from the Plaintiff and consequently the order dated 13.08.2024 directing removal of the impugned video is hereby confirmed till the disposal of the suit," the Court said. .However, the Court rejected Ilmi's allegation that the video journalist, through his actions, had outraged her modesty. The Court further said Ilmi was not justified in saying that the video journalist was a pervert and lecherous. "The allegation of the Plaintiff with respect to the first 22 seconds of the impugned video stating that it outrages her modesty is an afterthought... Firstly the Plaintiff did not object to/raise the said grievance in the Suppressed Tweet No.1, which was published right after the live debate; and secondly the said video footage was telecasted on National Television contemporaneously on the date of live debate," the Court observed. It further rejected the allegation that the video posted by Sardesai was doctored. .The Court also examined whether Sardesai's allegation, in his tweet, that Ilmi "abused" the India Today video journalist present in her house at the time of the show, should be struck down. The Court ruled that he was not justified in saying (in his tweet) she had "chucked the mic" and "thrown" the video journalist out of her house.However, the Court said that the remaining parts of the same tweet ("abuse our journalist" and "no excuse for bad behavior") were not liable to be struck down as prima facie, they appeared to have some basis.On Sardesai posting the video, the Court added,"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 the personal comment of Defendant No. 1 vis-à-vis the Plaintiff, basis the impugned video; albeit with the express approval of Defendant No. 2.".The dispute originated on July 26, 2024, after a debate hosted by Sardesai on India Today. In the show, Sardesai and Ilmi clashed after she tried to intervene when Major General (Retired) Yash Mor was pointing out the shortcomings in the Agnipath scheme. As Ilmi intervened, Sardesai said that the former General was putting forth “hard facts."Ilmi responded, “Don’t sermonise”. A heated argument followed between the journalist and Ilmi for several minutes, after which Ilmi left the show..That same night, Ilmi posted a tweet on her X account accusing Sardesai of bringing down her fader (volume) on the show.“Remember I have been on both the sides and know how to handle bullies like you. BTW it doesn’t behove political propagandists masquerading as journalists to sermonise,” she posted.The next morning, Sardesai shared a video on his X account alleging that Ilmi had abused the India Today video journalist present at her home.“If you have a grouse with me or with an army general on the show, of course that’s your prerogative. And I respect that too. But for you to chuck the Mike and abuse our video journalist and throw him out of your house is just NOT done. He was only doing his job. No excuse for bad behaviour. The rest I leave to you. Have a good weekend,” he wrote. On the other hand, Ilmi alleged that her privacy was violated as the India Today journalist continued to shoot the video even after she had walked out of the show. She then moved the Court.In August 2024, the Court directed Sardesai to take down the video uploaded by him on his personal account..Advocates Natasha Garg and Thakur Ankit Singh represented Shazia Ilmi.Senior Advocate Prashanto Sen with advocates Hrishikesh Baruah, Anurag Mishra, Utkarsh Dwivedi and Mashu Bishnoi represented Rajdeep Sardesai, India Today and one other respondent.Advocates Varun Pathak, Yash Karunakaran, Tanuj Sharma and Sauhard Alung represented other respondents. .[Read Judgment]