Delhi High Court: In an application filed by Bharatiya Janta Party spokesperson Shazia Ilmi under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) to seek an ex parte ad interim temporary injunction against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai (defendant 1) and other defendants in the matter, a Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. directed Rajdeep Sardesai along with the other defendants including X (Twitter) (defendant 3) and Instagram (defendant 4) to take down the impugned video within 24 hours.
Background
In a previous hearing of the present matter, the Court, vide order dated 09-08-2024, directed Rajdeep Sardesai and India Today (defendant 2) to place the original unedited version of the video recording of the incident dated 26-07-2024.
The Court perused the videos of the incident dated 27-07-2024 which occurred after Shazia Ilmi had left the show that was being telecast by India Today. It was contended by India Today that it had not uploaded the impugned video on any social media platform and that the impugned video had only been uploaded by Rajdeep Sardesai on his social media account.
Further, it was submitted that India Today had custody of the impugned video, and whether it had authorized Rajdeep Sardesai to use the video as well as the circumstances under which the same was made available to Rajdeep Sardesai for uploading on his social media account could not be stated.
Analysis and Decision
The Court directed the cameraman (defendant 12) of the show being telecast by India Today to provide his details to Shazia Ilmi within 24 hours and also directed Shazia Ilmi to file an amended memo of parties within two days.
The Court directed Shazia Ilmi, Rajdeep Sardesai, India Today, and the cameraman to place the transcript of video no. 3 filed by India Today, before the next date of hearing.
The Court directed Rajdeep Sardesai to take down the video posted on his X account until the disposal of the present matter, and Shazia Ilmi was directed to inform X to temporarily block the said post within 24 hours in case Rajdeep Sardesai failed to take down the impugned video within 24 hours.
The Court noted that defendant 6 had uploaded the impugned video on the social media platform of defendant 5 and directed defendant 6 to take down the impugned video within 24 hours. Directions were also given to defendant 5 to temporarily block the impugned video from the social media platform until the final disposal of the present application in case defendant 6 failed to act upon the direction given. Instagram was also directed to take down the impugned video uploaded on its social media platform.
Further, the Court stated that the directions for taking down the impugned video were necessary since India Today stated that it had custody of the original recording of the impugned video and that it was unable to confirm whether or not its use by Rajdeep Sardesai had been authorized.
The Court also opined that since video no. 3 was recorded after Shazia Ilmi had walked out from the show, the events that transpired thereafter were between her and the cameraman and asked India Today as well as the cameraman to address arguments on their right to record Shazia Ilmi in the privacy of her home after she had walked out of the show.
The matter has been further listed on 16-08-2024.
[Shazia Ilmi v. Rajdeep Sardesai, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5535, Decided on 13-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Plaintiff — Advocate Natasha Garg, Advocate Thakur Ankit Singh, Advocate Anjit Dwivedi
For Defendants — Advocate Dr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Advocate Anurag Mishra
