The defamation suit turns on a case of alleged mistaken identity. An activist says a television broadcast wrongly named and pictured him as the person who raised inflammatory slogans at a protest, something, he says, he never did, and that within hours he was flooded with threats to his life. The journalist told the Delhi High Court that he has now taken down the posts on his own, and written to social-media platforms to remove any copies. His counsel submitted that nothing survives in the matter; the activist, however, says he wants the case to go on. The Court will hear it in January.
New Delhi: Journalist Sudhir Chaudhary has informed the Delhi High Court that all his posts misidentifying activist Vijay Sherawat as the person who allegedly raised slogans about “destroying” Parliament and creating a “Nepal-like situation” during a protest have been removed from social-media platforms, in a Rs 5 crore defamation suit filed by Sherawat [Vijay Sherawat v. Sudhir Chaudhary and Others].
Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, appearing for Chaudhary and his production company, made the statement before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
The statement to the Court
Krishnan told the Court that the posts had been taken down voluntarily. “I have taken it down on my own. We have taken a conscious decision to take it down,” he submitted, adding that they had also written to social-media intermediaries asking that any of their posts republished by third parties be removed. He stated that he had no objection if the Court passed directions against social-media platforms for the removal of the content, and submitted that, since the posts had been taken down, nothing survived in the matter.
The plaintiff, however, told the Court that he wished to continue with the case.
The suit
According to the defamation suit, an episode of a programme anchored by Chaudhary, aired on the public broadcaster on August 27, identified Sherawat and displayed his image as the person who had raised slogans at the protest. Sherawat’s case is that he did not make the statement attributed to him, and that it was made by a different, unidentified person at a different event. The suit alleges that no verification was carried out before the telecast, that he was given no opportunity to respond, and that a low-quality version of the available footage was used so that the two persons could not be distinguished.
The plaint states that, within hours of the broadcast, the clip was republished across social-media platforms and that Sherawat received threats to his life, including threats to shoot him and to harm him, with one user allegedly seeking his home address. It states that he posted a clarification on his own social-media account, but that its reach could not match that of a national broadcast. These are the allegations in the suit, which are yet to be tested; the Court has expressed no view on their merits.
The court-fee question
While noting Krishnan’s statement about the removal of the posts, the Court also questioned the plaintiff over a shortfall in the court fee. It noted that, against nearly Rs 4.90 lakh payable as court fee, Sherawat had deposited only Rs 100. His counsel sought further time to deposit the amount, submitting that the plaintiff is a student. The Court, though it initially questioned the failure, allowed the request for an extension of time.
The matter will be heard next in January.
Why it matters
The case sits at the intersection of media reporting and the individual’s right to reputation. A defamation suit of this kind does not question the freedom to report on a protest; it turns on the narrower allegation that a specific, identifiable person was wrongly named and pictured as having said something he denies saying. Where such a misidentification is alleged, the questions a court examines are typically whether reasonable verification was done before publication, whether the person affected was given a chance to respond, and what harm the publication caused, the plaintiff here pointing to the threats he says followed within hours.
The voluntary removal of the posts, and the writing to intermediaries, is a significant development, but it does not, by itself, end the litigation. The plaintiff’s stated wish to continue reflects that a defamation suit seeks more than takedown: it claims damages for the injury already caused and, often, a vindication of reputation that a quiet deletion does not supply. Whether the case proceeds, and to what relief, will depend on the pleadings as they develop, and, immediately, on the plaintiff making good the court fee the statute requires.
Nothing has been decided. The allegations in the suit, of misidentification, of a failure to verify, and of the consequences that followed, are untested, and Chaudhary and the other defendants are yet to file their defence on the merits; equally, the removal of the posts is a step taken without any admission of liability. The Court has recorded the position, addressed the procedural question of the court fee, and left the substantive dispute to be taken up at the next hearing in January.
Case Title: Vijay Sherawat v. Sudhir Chaudhary and Others
Court: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Appearing: Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan for Sudhir Chaudhary and his production company; Advocates Pushp Sharma, Aditya Narayan Shukla, Jai Allagh and Prasoon Shekhar for the plaintiff.
Status: Defendant informed the Court that the misidentifying posts have been removed; plaintiff seeks to continue the Rs 5 crore defamation suit. Court-fee shortfall noted, time granted. Allegations untested; no view expressed on merits. Listed for January.