Threshold For Defamation Of Public Figures Should Be Higher: Delhi High Court Orders Take Down Of Only Obscene, Sexually Suggestive Content In Gaurav Bhatia's Case

The Delhi High Court, while ordering take down of obscene and sexually charged content from various platforms in a defamation complaint filed by BJP Leader Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, has exempted satirical and humorous content and observed that the threshold for defamation in respect of public figures or politically exposed persons should be higher.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants with respect to various allegedly abusive and defamatory statements and content posted by them against the Plaintiff- Gaurav Bhatia on the platform.

The Bench of Justice Amit Bansal held, ".....while the words used in the impugned posts may appear to be defamatory by themselves, it has to be borne in mind that the impugned posts were occasioned on account of the plaintiff’s appearance, as noted above, during a live telecast and, on a prima facie view, appear to be satirical, humorous and in the nature of hyperbole. Further, there is no invasion of privacy of the plaintiff as he voluntarily chose to be a part of a live television debate from his place of residence in such an attire...."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Raghav Awasthi, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Mamta Rani Jha.

Facts of the Case

The Plaintiff, a Senior Advocate and a National Spokesperson of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), while the Defendant No.1 to 5 and 7 to 25 are various persons including Political Parties and their representatives and spokespersons/ journalists/ news anchors/ authors/ politicians/ social and political commentators/ social media personalities. On September 12, 2025, the Plaintiff appeared on a live television debate on the channel of Defendant No.26 from his place of residence. It was the case of the Plaintiff that during the live telecast, the Plaintiff was attired in a kurta and casual shorts and as a matter of practice, the Cameraperson of the Defendant No.26 present at his residence was only supposed to take the Plaintiff’s headshot in the frame for the live telecast.

However, due to inadvertent mistake, the Plaintiff’s bare thighs were also visible on screen during the live telecast. Subsequently, several clips of the live telecast were circulated by the Defendants targeting the Plaintiff’s appearance in several posts on social media platforms. It was averred that the impugned posts made explicit and obscene allegations against the Plaintiff and the language used therein by the Defendants is derogatory, vulgar, humiliating and defamatory in nature.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset referred to a ruling by its single bench and observed that satire is one of the forms of free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and therefore is in the nature of ‘fair comment’. It was of the view that the threshold for defamation in respect of public figures or politically exposed persons should be higher.

"No doubt the actions of such individuals are more often under scrutiny and prone to public criticism, however, they also have the benefit of a stage/ media as well as the ability to counter any statement made against him", the Court observed.

Stating that it is well-settled that ex-parte ad interim injunctions could only be granted under exceptional circumstances, reference was made to Supreme Court's decision in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, 2024. 

".....at this stage, the Court is not inclined to grant an ex-parte ad interim injunction against the defendants qua their respective posts. In my prima facie view, it would only be reasonable to give an opportunity to the defendants to present their case including the defence of ‘fair comment’ that they might take in support of their posts", the Court observed.

However, it made clear that attacking the dignity of a person using obscene and sexually suggestive language under the guise of free speech cannot be permissible under any circumstances. 

The matter was accordingly listed for November 19, 2025.

Cause Title: Gaurav Bhatia vs. Samajwadi Party Media Cell And Others

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocates Raghav Awasthi, Simran Brar, Mukesh Sharma, Neelmani Guha, Vaibhav Dabas, Vikas Tiwari and Ruhi Ansari 

Respondent- Advocates Mamta Rani Jha, Shruttima Ehersa, Rohan Ahuja, Diya Viswanath and Aiswarya Debadarshini

Click here to read/ download Order