Sardesai Challenges Delhi High Court Ruling on Ilmi Video Takedown, Citing Privacy and Defamation Complexities

New Delhi – Senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai has escalated his legal battle against a Delhi High Court single-judge order, filing an appeal before a Division Bench. The contested order, delivered on April 4, 2025, directed Sardesai to remove an 18-second video clip from his social media, which allegedly depicted an altercation involving BJP leader Shazia Ilmi . The single judge had found the video's publication to be a violation of Ilmi 's right to privacy. This appeal brings to the forefront critical legal questions surrounding privacy, defamation, journalistic conduct, and the responsibilities of individuals and platforms in the digital age.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar , has listed the appeal for hearing in the first week of July, after the High Court's summer vacation. The court permitted Sardesai , represented by Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar , to submit the impugned video footage on a pen drive for the court's perusal.

The Genesis of the Dispute: A Televised Debate and Social Media Fallout

The controversy originated from a heated debate on the India Today news channel on July 26, 2024, hosted by Sardesai , concerning the Agnipath scheme. Shazia Ilmi , participating remotely from her residence, clashed with Sardesai after attempting to interject while Major General (Retired) Yash Mor was critiquing the scheme. Sardesai remarked that the retired General was presenting “hard facts,” leading to a sharp exchange between Ilmi and himself, culminating in Ilmi withdrawing from the debate mid-show.

Later that evening, Ilmi took to her X (formerly Twitter) account, accusing Sardesai of muting her microphone (fader) during the broadcast. She tweeted, “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.”

The situation escalated the following morning, July 27, 2024, when Sardesai posted a video on his personal X account. He alleged that after withdrawing from the debate, Ilmi had abused an India Today video journalist present at her home to facilitate the remote broadcast, thrown a microphone at the journalist, and subsequently ejected him from her house. Sardesai ’s tweet accompanying the video stated, "to chuck the mike and allegedly abusing the video journalist by Ilmi and throwing him out of her house was just not done," adding that the video journalist was merely doing his job.

In response, Ilmi contended that her privacy had been violated because the India Today journalist continued to record footage even after she had formally withdrawn from the live debate. This led Ilmi to file a defamation suit against Sardesai and the India Today video journalist in the Delhi High Court.

The Single Judge's Order: Balancing Privacy, Truth, and Conduct

In August 2024, the High Court, through a single-judge bench, passed an interim order directing Sardesai to take down the video he had uploaded. This interim direction was confirmed by Justice Manmeet SinghArora in a detailed order on April 4, 2025.

Justice Arora ’s ruling meticulously dissected the various elements of the dispute:

Violation of Right to Privacy: The cornerstone of the single judge's decision was the finding that recording and publishing the segment of the video showing Ilmi withdrawing from the live debate and moving out of the shooting frame infringed upon her right to privacy. The court observed, "after moving out of the shooting frame, Ilmi was in the comfort and privacy of her home, a space where she had a reasonable expectation of being undisturbed and not being seen by public without her consent."

Cessation of Consent: Crucially, the court held that Ilmi 's consent to be recorded, given for her participation in the live debate, ended the moment she withdrew from the discussion and moved away from the camera's designated shooting frame. The judge stated that Sardesai "could not have recorded or used the said portion of the video in absence of Ilmi 's express consent." The court emphasized that "her consent to record her video in her house as a part of the participation in the live debate came to an end the moment she withdrew herself from the live debate and walked away from the chair and shooting frame."

Analysis of Sardesai 's Tweet: The court differentiated between parts of Sardesai 's tweet. * The first part of the text portion of his quote tweet was allowed to be retained as Ilmi had not raised objections to it. * The comments in the second part, specifically "abuse our video journalist and no excuse for bad behaviour," were deemed permissible for Sardesai to retain. The court found these statements to be protected by the defence of truth, considering them "substantially correct." * However, the court found Sardesai 's assertion that Ilmi "chuck[ed] the mike" to be "without any basis and contrary to the video footage," and therefore not substantially correct. Given Sardesai 's status as a reputed journalist with a large following, the court noted, "the tendency of the reader to believe the accuracy of his comment would be higher," and that the "impact of Sardesai 's tweet was certainly significant."

Nature of Sardesai 's Tweet: The single judge also opined that Sardesai 's tweet would not be covered by the Norms of Journalistic Conduct, as it was "not being published as a journalistic piece of news and was in the nature of his personal comment qua Ilmi ."

Costs on Ilmi : While granting relief to Ilmi , the court also imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on her for "willfully suppressing two tweets made by her," which formed part of the same conversation thread as Sardesai 's contentious tweet.

Sardesai 's Appeal: Allegations of Suppressed Facts and Truncated Video

In challenging Justice Arora 's order, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar , appearing for Sardesai , argued before the Division Bench that Ilmi had "suppressed facts." A key contention was that the single-judge bench had purportedly relied on a "truncated video" when passing the interim order and the subsequent confirmatory judgment. Sardesai 's appeal seeks to overturn the direction for the video's removal, suggesting a different interpretation of the events and the available evidence.

The Division Bench, however, deferred a substantive hearing, with Justice Chawla remarking on the timing of the appeal being filed on the last working day before the summer break: “Why has it come on the last day...? We will have it in July.” The bench did allow Sardesai to place the relevant video clips on record via a pen drive.

Ramifications for Social Media Platforms and Users

The case has also spiraled into related proceedings concerning the enforcement of court orders on social media platforms. Following the April 4 order, it was noted that several X users continued to share the contentious video clip. This led the High Court, on April 9, 2025, to issue contempt of court notices to these users. Furthermore, Justice Arora directed X Corp to disclose the Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) of these individuals to aid in the contempt proceedings.

X Corp subsequently approached the court seeking a modification of this directive, citing privacy concerns for its users. However, earlier in May 2025, Justice Arora dismissed X Corp’s plea, mandating the platform to provide the BSI details within 36 hours. The judge expressed strong disapproval of the continued circulation of the video despite clear court orders, remarking, “It was surprising that people were using the judgment and video together. It was a mockery of the judgment.”

While ordering the disclosure, the court agreed to X Corp's request to keep open the broader question of the extent to which the privacy of X users, whose BSI is sought, should be preserved. This significant issue concerning platform liability and user privacy in the context of court orders is slated for a separate hearing on August 29.

Legal Landscape: Privacy, Defamation, and Journalistic Freedom

The Sardesai v. Ilmi case navigates a complex intersection of several legal doctrines:

1. Right to Privacy: The single judge's order heavily relied on the right to privacy, particularly the expectation of privacy within one's home. The ruling underscores that consent for recording, even for a public broadcast, is not perpetual and can be implicitly or explicitly withdrawn by conduct. This aligns with the evolving jurisprudence on privacy, recognizing it as a fundamental right that extends to private spaces even when initial consent for limited exposure was granted.

2. Defamation Law: The core of Ilmi 's suit is defamation. The court's partial allowance of Sardesai 's tweet, based on the "defence of truth" for some allegations while rejecting others as unsubstantiated, illustrates the nuanced application of defamation principles. The distinction between verifiable facts and unsupported claims is critical.

3. Freedom of Speech and Journalistic Conduct: While Sardesai 's tweet was deemed a "personal comment" rather than a journalistic piece, the case invariably touches upon the responsibilities of journalists on social media. The court's observation about the higher tendency of readers to believe a reputed journalist's comments highlights the amplified impact such individuals have and the corresponding need for accuracy. The appeal will likely further scrutinize the boundaries between personal expression and professional accountability for media personalities.

4. Interim Injunctions: The grant and confirmation of the interim injunction (video takedown) demonstrate the court's willingness to provide pre-trial relief in cases of prima facie privacy violation or defamation, especially where continued dissemination of content could cause irreparable harm. The "balance of convenience" and "irreparable injury" tests are central to such orders.

5. Appellate Review: The Division Bench's upcoming hearing will involve a review of the single judge's findings of fact and law. The appellate court will assess whether the single judge correctly applied legal principles, particularly concerning privacy, consent, and the elements of defamation.

Potential Impact and Future Considerations

The outcome of Rajdeep Sardesai 's appeal will be keenly watched by legal practitioners, media houses, and social media companies. A decision by the Division Bench could:

• Further clarify the scope of an individual's right to privacy in their home, especially concerning recordings made after consent is withdrawn.
• Set precedents on how courts balance the right to privacy against freedom of expression in the context of social media disputes involving public figures.
• Offer guidance on the application of the defence of truth in defamation cases stemming from social media posts.
• Influence how journalistic ethics and standards are perceived when journalists make personal comments on public platforms.
• Impact the ongoing debate about the obligations of social media intermediaries in policing content and complying with court-ordered takedowns and data disclosures.

The proceedings also highlight the increasing trend of high-profile disputes playing out both in courtrooms and on social media, with legal battles often running parallel to public discourse and, at times, public defiance of court directives, as seen in the actions of some X users.

As the Delhi High Court prepares to delve deeper into this multifaceted case in July, the legal community anticipates further judicial insights into the intricate balance between fundamental rights and the complexities of digital communication in an era of pervasive media. The eventual resolution will likely contribute significantly to India's evolving jurisprudence on media law, privacy, and online speech.