The Delhi High Court Friday imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on BJP spokesperson Shazia Ilmi for wilfully suppressing two posts on social media. Ilmi had moved a defamation suit against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai and others last August, seeking a permanent injunction against a “defamatory” video posted by Sardesai and seeking damages. The court also said “trial by social media” against Ilmi at the behest of Sardesai and India Today, by using a “video footage of 18 seconds on their social media handle without her consent would be impermissible in law”. It also upheld a previous HC order directing the video be taken down. Sardesai had posted the video on July 27, 2024 — where Ilmi was seen taking off her mic and walking out — and claimed Ilmi had abused an India Today cameraman during a TV debate. Ilmi had claimed the video was doctored and it outraged her modesty and infringed on her privacy. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora imposed the cost on Ilmi for suppressing two posts, “which formed part of the same conversation thread of which the impugned quote post (of Sardesai) was part of” and directed her to pay the cost to Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association. Justice Arora concluded that in the initial 22 seconds of the video — where Ilmi is seen removing the mic — she did not instruct the cameraperson to stop recording, and thus, cannot allege outraging of modesty. It noted the same “appears to be an afterthought”. “. the allegations. that the video recording of her removing her microphone. outrages her modesty also does not prima facie appeal to this court. If (Ilmi) did not want the removal of the microphone to be recorded, she should have first asked defendant. to stop recording her, confirm the stoppage of recording, and then proceeded to remove her microphone,” the court said. “. Plaintiff did not do any of the above. However, once she decided to withdraw from the live debate, she unmiked herself while still being seen on national television and walked away from the shooting frame,” it added. However, for the next 18 seconds of the video, where Ilmi is seen walking away from the frame, the court recognised that she “has her right to privacy.” “The consent of the plaintiff to record her video in her house. came to an end the moment (she) withdrew from the live debate and walked away from the chair and shooting frame. Ideally, (defendants) ought to have stopped recording the plaintiff immediately.,” the court said. “. trial by social media at the behest of defendant (Sardesai and India Today) against the plaintiff by using this video footage of 18 seconds on their social media handle without her consent would be impermissible in law,” it added. The court ruled Sardesai’s comments in the second part of his post, where he accuses Ilmi of abusing the video journalist, can be retained by him “as the same is protected by defence of truth, being substantially correct”. It also directed taking down of the video but refused to accept Ilmi’s allegation that the same was doctored, noting that she “did not place on record anything to substantiate” the claim. The IT local commissioner appointed by the court “did not return a positive finding stating the impugned video is doctored”, it added.
