Delhi High Court rules on Gaurav Bhatia defamation case, allowing satire on public figures while ordering the take-down of obscene and defamatory social media posts targeting him.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court recently addressed an interesting intersection of social media, public figures, and free speech in the case involving BJP leader and Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia. The Court examined whether satirical and humorous posts about Bhatia’s recent television appearance could be considered defamatory or an invasion of privacy.
Background of the Case
The case arose after Bhatia appeared on a live television debate wearing a Kurta and shorts, which led to several social media posts commenting on his attire. Bhatia filed a suit seeking the blocking or take-down of nearly two dozen links or posts across platforms like Twitter and YouTube. These posts included content by Newslaundry, journalist Abhisar Sharma, and politicians, including Ragini Nayak, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Rajkumar Bhati, Surendra Rajput, and Srinivas BV.
He also targeted posts by social media users, including the Samajwadi Party Media Cell, an X handle @activistsandeep, and Twitter user Vish Patel, which allegedly contained morphed images and objectionable text.
Court’s Observations
Justice Amit Bansal noted that the posts in question appeared satirical, humorous, and hyperbolic, arising directly from Bhatia’s voluntary appearance on a live telecast.
“While the words used in the impugned posts may appear to be defamatory by themselves, it has to be borne in mind that the impugned posts were occasioned on account of the plaintiff’s appearance, as noted above, during a live telecast and, on a prima facie view, appear to be satirical, humorous, and in the nature of hyperbole. Further, there is no invasion of privacy of the plaintiff as he voluntarily chose to be a part of a live television debate from his place of residence in such an attire,”
the Court observed.
The Court emphasized:
- Public figures or politically exposed persons are subject to higher scrutiny, and the threshold for defamation is accordingly higher.
“No doubt the actions of such individuals are more often under scrutiny and prone to public criticism, however, they also have the benefit of a stage/ media as well as the ability to counter any statement made against him.”
- Satire, humor, and fair commentary on such individuals generally do not constitute a violation of privacy or defamation.
- Public figures have the platform and means to respond to criticism, making them less vulnerable to reputational harm.
The Court clarified that this protection does not extend to obscene or sexually suggestive content, which cannot be justified under the guise of free speech. Posts by the Samajwadi Party Media Cell and the X handle @activistsandeep fell into this category, prompting an order for their take-down.
Orders Passed:
- The Court ordered the blocking of defamatory posts made by the Twitter user Vish Patel, particularly those containing morphed images with objectionable content.
- For other posts and links, the Court did not grant an ex parte injunction, instead issuing a summons to allow the defendants to present their defenses, including a potential ‘fair comment’ defense.
Therefore, at this stage, the Court is not inclined to grant an ex-parte ad interim injunction against the defendants qua their respective posts. In my prima facie view, it would only be reasonable to give an opportunity to the defendants to present their case including the defence of ‘fair comment’ that they might take in support of their posts,”
the Court said.
- The case is now listed for further hearing on November 19.
Appearance:
For Gaurav Bhatia: Advocates Raghav Awasthi, Simran Brar, Mukesh Sharma, Neelmani Guha, Vaibhav Dabas, Vikas Tiwari and Ruhi Ansari
For Google: Advocates Mamta Rani Jha, Shruttima Ehersa, Rohan Ahuja, Diya Viswanath and Aiswarya Debadarshini
Case Title:
Gaurav Bhatia v Samajwadi Party Media Cell and Ors
CS(OS) 679/2025 with I.A. 23950/2025, I.A. 23951/2025, I.A. 23952/2025, I.A. 23953/2025 & I.A. 23954/2025
Read Order:
