‘Reputation can’t be sacrificed’: Delhi court orders AAP to remove ‘defamatory’ video of BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj

“The right of reputation of a living individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be sacrificed and crucified at the altar of the right of freedom of speech and expression of another and both have to be harmonised and balanced in as much as no amount of damages can redeem the damage to reputation of any person,” the order said, underlining that reputational harm cannot be adequately compensated by damages.

A Delhi court asked AAP and its leaders Saurabh Bhardwaj and Ankush Narang to remove the alleged defamatory video of the BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj.

Court’s findings: Prima facie case established

After examining the material, including viewing the video in court, the judge held that Bansuri Swaraj had established a prima facie case.

The court noted that the content appeared to “distort facts and mislead the public” besides its continued circulation “posed a risk of irreparable reputational harm and the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff”.

It reiterated that freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions, including defamation.

Ruling

• Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff (Bansuri Swaraj).
• By making defamatory content available on a public platform, would not, in any way, infringe on the rights of defendants (AAP leaders) of freedom of speech and expression, which they can in any case, exercise within the defined parameters.
• Reputation of the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if injunctions as prayed for are not granted, as she would suffer further loss to her reputation.
• It is a well-settled law that the right to free speech cannot mean that a citizen can defame others.
• The protection of reputation is a fundamental right and also a human right, and cumulatively serves the social interest.
• The infringement of the right to reputation may result in civil as well as criminal action.
• The fair comment implies making of a genuine effort to reach the truth and a mere belief that there is truth without there being reasonable grounds for such a plea is not synonymous with fair comment.
• It is also the duty of the printer/publisher to act with due care and caution.
• A person is entitled to be treated with dignity.
• He has the right of social reputation as an ordinary citizen.
• Even if he is a public figure, his reputation is a cherished value and an element of personal security.

‘Take down within 48 hours’

The court directed the defendants (AAP and its leaders, Saurabh Bhardwaj and Ankush Narang) to stop publishing or sharing the impugned content, remove existing posts from social media platforms against Bansuri Swaraj and refrain from further dissemination until the next hearing.

It added that if the order is not complied with within 48 hours, Bansuri Swaraj may approach social media platforms directly with the court’s order for removal of the content.

Background

The dispute arises from a video posted on April 19, following a protest march held a day earlier in Delhi. During the protest, Bansuri Swaraj was detained by police along with Raksha Khadse, the Union Minister of State.

According to the suit, a moment during detention where Swaraj held Khadse’s hand was edited and circulated by AAP’s Bharadwaj with captions suggesting that Swaraj had staged her own detention.

The video allegedly misidentified Khadse as a police officer and misleadingly portrayed the incident.

The content was widely shared across Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and Facebook, and was later reposted by Narang and amplified through a press conference by AAP on April 21.

‘Malicious smear campaign’

Swaraj contended that the video was deliberately manipulated to create a false narrative and expose her to public ridicule.

She argued that the defendants falsely depicted her as staging a detention for political theatrics, thereby damaging her credibility as a public representative.

The plea also pointed out that the video included unrelated clips, including that of a minor, in a derogatory manner, aggravating the alleged defamation.

Defence: No urgency, content disputed

Advocate Rishikesh Kumar, counsel for Bharadwaj and AAP, opposed interim relief, arguing that they had limited time to respond after receiving the material late on April 22.

He questioned the authenticity of the video, suggested it was not ex facie defamatory, and claimed the content was no longer visible on certain platforms.

He also argued that granting an injunction at this stage would effectively amount to deciding the case without trial.

Next hearing

The defendants have been granted 30 days to file their written statements and 15 days to respond to the interim application.

The matter will next be heard on May 13.