Delhi HC Imposes ₹25,000 Fine on Shazia Ilmi in Defamation Case Against Rajdeep Sardesai

The Delhi High Court on Friday imposed a ₹25,000 cost on BJP leader Shazia Ilmi. She concealed two crucial social media posts. These were concealed in a defamation lawsuit she filed against senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai.

Ilmi had filed the suit in August 2024. She sought a permanent injunction and damages. She claimed the cause was a defamatory video clip shared by Sardesai. The video, shared on July 27, 2024, showed Ilmi removing her microphone and walking away during a debate. Sardesai alleged she had verbally abused a cameraman from India Today. Ilmi countered the video was doctored. She stated it violated her privacy and outraged her modesty.

Rajdeep shared Courts Verdict on Social Media Platform X

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in his ruling, upheld a prior order directing the removal of the video. He also criticized Ilmi for failing to disclose two of her own posts. These posts were part of the same online conversation as the one she was objecting to. As a result, the court directed her to pay the cost to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association.

The court reviewed the first 22 seconds of the video. Ilmi did not instruct the camera crew to stop filming. Therefore, claims of her modesty being violated did not hold merit. Justice Arora noted that the allegation seemed to be retrospective and unconvincing.

“The plaintiff should have asked the cameraman to stop filming. She needed to do this if she wanted to prevent the recording of her removing the microphone,” the judge stated. “She should have confirmed that the camera was off. Only then should she have removed her mic. She did not take any of these steps. Instead, she chose to leave the live debate. She did this while still being filmed on national television.”

However, the court took a different stance on the following 18 seconds, during which Ilmi was seen leaving the frame. It acknowledged her right to privacy from the moment she walked away from the active debate. It asserted that continuing to record and share that footage on social media without consent was not legally permissible.

“The permission granted to film her during the debate ended when she withdrew from the session and stepped away. The defendants should have stopped recording at that point,” the court said. It emphasized that engaging in ‘trial by social media’ by sharing that portion of the footage was a legal overstep.

The court addressed Sardesai’s accompanying comment alleging that Ilmi abused the cameraman. The court ruled that the journalist could retain that statement. It was substantially true. Therefore, it was protected under the legal doctrine of truth.