Today, On 25th September, Delhi High Court orally stated that it will direct the removal of memes and videos targeting BJP leader and Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia. The Court stated, “We will order take down of defamatory videos” if defendants fail to comply.
The Delhi High Court announced its intention to issue directives for the removal of defamatory content on social media concerning BJP leader and Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, following his recent appearance on a TV news program that gained significant attention.
Justice Amit Bansal indicated that he would instruct the offending parties to remove the defamatory memes and videos. Should they fail to comply, he would direct the intermediary platforms hosting the content to take it down.
The Court orally stated,
“We will order take down of defamatory videos. If they are not taken down by the defendants, the intermediary will do it. We will pass orders,”
Bhatia appeared on News show earlier this month, where journalist Amish Devgan introduced him while he was allegedly wearing a kurta without pants or pyjama.
This led to a surge of memes and videos circulating on social media about the incident, prompting Bhatia to seek legal recourse.
Earlier, On September 23, Advocate Raghav Awasthi, representing Bhatia, clarified that Bhatia was wearing shorts, and that the cameraman had inadvertently shown the lower half of his body. Awasthi argued that the social media posts infringe on Bhatia’s privacy and that the objectionable comments should be removed.
Bhatia also addressed the Court in person, expressing that individuals on social media should not be permitted to use derogatory terms like “nanga (nude)” in reference to his appearance on television.
He stated,
“I stand before you because reputation is earned over decades,”
During the subsequent hearing, Bhatia asserted that the offensive content transcends the boundaries of free speech, constituting defamation.
He argued,
“The same defendants are posting with the same remarks like ‘nanga’. They don’t join [the proceedings] but say all this. This can’t be freedom of speech, this can’t be humour and satire if you go to this extent to defame a person who has earned his reputation through hard work. I am asking for an order to be passed against them and to restrain them.”
Advocate Mamta Rani Jha, representing Google, suggested that initial orders should be directed at the offending websites or social media handles, and that only if they do not comply should directions be issued to the intermediaries.
Jha said,
“There are defendants like Newslaundry and Delhi Patrika… when your lordships are passing the orders, the first direction has to be passed to the defendants and then to the intermediary,”
The Court concluded by stating that it would first issue directives to the offending parties.
Bhatia’s complaint argues that several social media posts and comments by political figures, news platforms, and journalists constitute a violation of his privacy and are defamatory in nature.