The Delhi High Court has refused interim relief to journalist Anjana Om Kashyap and TV Today Network in their Rs 2 crore defamation suit against Khan Sir and others. Justice Madhu Jain listed the matter for further hearing on July 2.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to grant any interim relief at this stage to journalist Anjana Om Kashyap and TV Today Network in their Rs 2 crore defamation suit against exam-coaching educator Faisal Khan, popularly known as “Khan Sir,” along with several other teachers and social media users. Justice Madhu Jain did not pass any interim order on the plaintiffs’ application seeking an injunction and listed the matter for further hearing on July 2.
The Court noted that defendants 1, 7, 10 and 11 had not yet filed their replies to the interim-relief application and accordingly granted them time to place their responses on record. The suit has been filed by Kashyap and TV Today Network against Khan Sir and other defendants, including educators Abhinay Sharma, Babita Tyagi, Arvind Bhadauriya and Manish Yadav, as well as X users SamKhasa and Abhimanyu1305. The plaintiffs have sought removal of allegedly defamatory content and damages of Rs 2 crore.
The dispute arose after Khan Sir allegedly made remarks against Kashyap in connection with her reporting and commentary on “star teachers.” The plaintiffs objected to terms such as “bikau patrakar”, “chatukar”, “dalaali” and “fake news dukaan”, which they say were used against the journalist and were later circulated on online platforms. During the hearing, counsel appearing for defendants 4 to 6 argued that there was no urgency to warrant consideration by the vacation bench and submitted that the matter should be listed before the roster bench after the High Court reopens in July. The counsel also contended that the suit was not maintainable since different causes of action were alleged against different defendants.
On behalf of the plaintiffs, counsel for Kashyap and TV Today stressed the urgency of the matter and highlighted the interim injunction application. Referring to the impugned content, counsel submitted, “Please see the language.” Counsel for defendants 4 to 6, however, argued that Kashyap had made false statements against educational institutions and teachers, and that the defendants had only responded to those remarks.
The counsel submitted,
“She made false statement against the educational institution and teachers. They in reply said something. They are not entitled to… let the replies come on record and then ladyships can hear,”
Counsel for the plaintiffs responded by arguing that the defendants used “unparliamentary language” against Kashyap and also targeted her child.
At this stage, Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, appearing for defendant No. 8, argued that separate suits ought to have been filed against different persons and for different statements. Counsel for defendants 4 to 6 further remarked,
“First she puts fire and then she cannot say that smoke should not hurt me.”
Advocate Gauhar Mirza, appearing for defendants 2 and 3, submitted that the plaintiffs had other remedies available, including criminal proceedings.
He argued,
“They can go for criminal complaint. They are making general allegations against all defendants. Very smartly they have made vague comments against everybody. I am for D 2-3. I have said nothing. We run different YouTube and social media channels. They combined everyone,”
Mirza further contended that the matter lacked urgency and characterised the lawsuit as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).
He submitted,
“I cannot even say the word she has used against me. I will play the video, unprovoked she does a debate and I cannot even say the word she uses. This is a slap suit. They are journalists. They should have some responsibility. It is no urgency at all,”
In rejoinder, counsel for Kashyap argued that even the name of her child’s school had been dragged into the controversy and urged the Court to direct the removal of the impugned content, submitting that “Heavens won’t fall if these (content/posts) are taken down.”
The controversy allegedly arose from a live debate concerning the NEET examination system, during which Kashyap reportedly criticised online teachers, calling them “frauds” and people “chasing views.” According to the suit, Khan Sir subsequently made remarks targeting the journalist and the channel, leading to the present proceedings. The plaintiffs have sought removal of the allegedly defamatory content from online and social media platforms, along with damages of Rs 2 crore.
Case Title: Anjana Om Kashyap and Another vs Faisal Khan and Others
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE