Rajdeep Sardesai Today (July 2) took back his appeal against a Delhi High Court order that told him to delete a viral video clip involving BJP leader Shazia Ilmi. The court said the video hurt Ilmi’s right to privacy and must not be online.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai has withdrawn his appeal before the Delhi High Court regarding the takedown of an 18-second video clip posted on his social media account.
The video, which became controversial, showed an argument between BJP leader Shazia Ilmi and an India Today journalist.
Sardesai decided to take back his challenge after the Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar showed they were not willing to send a notice in the case. The judges felt that the Single Judge’s decision was already “well-reasoned” and needed no change.
Earlier, Justice Manmeet Singh Arora had passed an order asking for the video to be removed. This short video was recorded after Shazia Ilmi exited a live debate on India Today TV.
In the April 4, 2025 order, the judge said that keeping this kind of video online was a violation of Ilmi’s right to privacy. The court also confirmed its earlier interim order given in August 2024, which had already asked Sardesai to remove the video. However, at that time, the court had also imposed Rs 25,000 costs on Ilmi for not disclosing some of her own tweets to the court.
Sardesai had gone to court arguing that Ilmi had hidden important facts, especially her own tweets about the incident.
The entire matter started on July 26, 2024, during a live debate hosted by Sardesai on India Today. Shazia Ilmi joined the debate from her home. During the discussion, Ilmi interrupted Major General (Retd.) Yash Mor, who was criticizing the government’s Agnipath scheme. Sardesai responded by saying:
“Hard facts”
This led to a heated argument between Sardesai and Ilmi. After a few minutes of back-and-forth, Ilmi decided to leave the debate mid-way.
Later that night, Ilmi posted on X (formerly Twitter), blaming Sardesai for lowering her microphone volume during the show.
“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 next morning, Sardesai shared a video clip on his X account, where he accused Ilmi of misbehaving with the India Today video journalist who was at her home. He said Ilmi got angry after quitting the debate, threw the microphone at the journalist, and told him to leave.
Ilmi replied saying her privacy was disrespected because the journalist continued recording even after she had left the show. She then went to court and filed a defamation case against Sardesai.
The court first passed an interim order in August 2024, telling Sardesai to delete the video. This order was confirmed again by the court on April 4, 2025.
After that, on April 9, the court also sent contempt of court notices to several X users who had uploaded or reshared the video clip, despite the takedown order. The court asked X (formerly Twitter) to provide the basic subscriber information (BSI) of these users.
When X Corp tried to change the court’s direction about revealing these details, Justice Arora rejected the plea. The court ordered that the BSI details must be shared within 36 hours.
Justice Arora also strongly objected to the continued sharing of the video online, saying it violated the court’s clear orders.
In this case, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar appeared for Sardesai, along with Hrishikesh Baruah and Utkarsh Dwivedi.
Shazia Ilmi was represented by Advocates Nattasha Garg, Thakur Ankit Singh, and Anubhav Dubey.
CASE TITLE:
RAJDEEP SARDESAI & ORS. vs SHAZIA ILMI
CONNECTED HEARING EARLIER IN DELHI HC
The Delhi High Court on April 4 ordered Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Shazia Ilmi to pay Rs 25,000 for not sharing some important tweets in her defamation case against senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai from India Today.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora found that Ilmi had hidden two tweets which were part of the same thread as the controversial tweet she complained about.
This case started after Shazia Ilmi filed a defamation suit against Rajdeep Sardesai. She was upset about a video that was shared on social media after she had walked out of a debate on the India Today channel.
The video, according to her, was shot without her consent and showed her in an uncomfortable moment with a video journalist from India Today.
While giving its decision, the Court partly accepted Ilmi’s request for temporary relief. However, the judge also pointed out that Ilmi did not disclose some tweets in her plea, which were important to the case.
“Since the Plaintiff had willfully suppressed two (2) tweets which formed part of the same conversation thread of which the Impugned Quote Tweet was part of and therefore, the Plaintiff is saddled with the cost of Rs. 25,000/- payable to Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association, through the Secretary within a period of three (3) weeks,”
-the Court ordered.
The Court also confirmed its earlier order to take down the 18-second portion of the video that showed a short clash between Ilmi and the video journalist. The Court believed that since Ilmi had already walked out of the live debate, recording and posting that part of the video was a violation of her privacy.
“The contention of the Plaintiff that recording and publishing the impugned video (vis-à-vis 18 seconds after she withdrew from the live debate and moved out of the shooting frame) violates her right to privacy is duly made out in the facts of this case; and this Court finds that indeed the right of privacy of the Plaintiff was violated; but only with respect to the 18 seconds footage (starting at 23 seconds and ending at 40 seconds) in the impugned video; as the Plaintiff did not consent to the said recording.
“Therefore, the Defendant No.1 and 2 could not have recorded or used the said portion of the impugned video in absence of the express consent from the Plaintiff and consequently the order dated 13.08.2024 directing removal of the impugned video is hereby confirmed till the disposal of the suit,”
-the Court said.
However, Ilmi had also alleged that the video journalist had behaved in a way that insulted her modesty. The Court did not agree with her on this. It said that the claim seemed to be an afterthought and was not backed by her own tweet posted just after the show.
“The allegation of the Plaintiff with respect to the first 22 seconds of the impugned video stating that it outrages her modesty is an afterthought… Firstly the Plaintiff did not object to/raise the said grievance in the Suppressed Tweet No.1, which was published right after the live debate; and secondly the said video footage was telecasted on National Television contemporaneously on the date of live debate,”
-the Court observed.
Ilmi had also claimed that the video uploaded by Sardesai was edited or manipulated. The Court rejected this claim and said there was no proof that the video was doctored.
The judge also looked into a particular tweet made by Sardesai where he said that Ilmi had “abused” the India Today video journalist who was present at her home during the show. The Court said Sardesai was wrong to say she had “chucked the mike” and “thrown” the journalist out of her house.
But it said that the rest of the tweet did not need to be removed as it seemed to be based on some facts.
“This Court finds that the Impugned Quote Tweet of Defendant No. 1 would not be covered by the Norms of Journalistic Conduct as it was not being published as a journalistic piece of news and is in the nature of the personal comment of Defendant No. 1 vis-à-vis the Plaintiff, basis the impugned video; albeit with the express approval of Defendant No. 2.”
This dispute began on July 26, 2024, during a debate hosted by Sardesai on the India Today channel. During the show, a heated argument broke out between Sardesai and Ilmi when she interrupted Retired Major General Yash Mor while he was discussing problems in the Agnipath scheme. As the former Army officer shared his views, Sardesai defended him by saying he was presenting “hard facts.”
Ilmi responded strongly and said,
“Don’t sermonise”.
The situation escalated into a full-blown argument and Ilmi eventually left the debate midway.
Later that same night, Ilmi took to X (formerly Twitter) and made a post alleging that Sardesai had reduced her mic volume during the show to silence her.
“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,”
-she posted.
The next morning, Sardesai responded by posting a video clip on his X account. In the caption, he accused Ilmi of misbehaving with the India Today video journalist who had come to her house to shoot the show.
“If you have a grouse with me or with an army general on the show, of course that’s your prerogative. And I respect that too. But for you to chuck the Mike and abuse our video journalist and throw him out of your house is just NOT done. He was only doing his job. No excuse for bad behaviour. The rest I leave to you. Have a good weekend,”
-he wrote.
Ilmi then moved to the Delhi High Court and said that her right to privacy had been violated because the journalist continued to film even after she had exited the show.
In August 2024, the Court had passed an order asking Sardesai to take down the video from his personal X account, which he had posted after the debate.
Shazia Ilmi was represented by Advocates Natasha Garg and Thakur Ankit Singh in Court.
Rajdeep Sardesai, along with India Today and another respondent, was represented by Senior Advocate Prashanto Sen, along with Advocates Hrishikesh Baruah, Anurag Mishra, Utkarsh Dwivedi, and Mashu Bishnoi.
Other respondents were represented by Advocates Varun Pathak, Yash Karunakaran, Tanuj Sharma, and Sauhard Alung.
CASE TITLE:
Shazia Ilmi v. Rajdeep Sardesai and ors.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Shazia Ilmi vs Rajdeep Sardesai
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
