The Delhi High Court has permitted BJP leader and Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia to serve summons in his defamation case via email and social media platform X, marking a crucial step toward digital efficiency in legal proceedings.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has permitted an application filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, seeking modification of its earlier order dated September 25, 2025, in connection with his ongoing defamation suit.
The matter was heard by Justice Amit Bansal, who allowed the plea for partial modification of certain directions issued in the earlier order.
Background of the Case
On September 25, the Delhi High Court issued summons in Gaurav Bhatia’s defamation suit. Under paragraph 45 of that order, Bhatia was required to serve summons to Defendant No. 3 (Dr. Ragini Nayak) and Defendant No. 26 (News18 India) through all modes of service.
However, Bhatia’s counsel submitted that while they had the email addresses of both defendants, their physical addresses were unavailable, making it practically impossible to serve them through every mode prescribed by the order.
Court’s Observation and Modification
After hearing the submissions, the Court agreed to modify paragraph 45 of the September 25 order, allowing Bhatia to serve Dr. Ragini Nayak and News18 India via email alone.
Additionally, paragraph 50 of the same order was also modified. The Court granted permission to Bhatia to serve social media handles of users through X, a move reflecting the judiciary’s acknowledgment of the changing modes of communication in the digital era.
Directions to Other Defendants
The Court also noted that the counsels for Defendant Nos. 1 (Samajwadi Party Media Cell), 6 (X Corp), and 22 (Newslaundry) had waived formal service of summons. Consequently, Justice Bansal directed that these defendants must file their written statements within 30 days from the date of the order.
With these modifications, the Court disposed of Bhatia’s application, providing him relief from the earlier procedural requirement of serving certain defendants through all modes.
