Delhi HC to hear Rajdeep Sardesai’s appeal in defamation case by BJP’s Shazia Ilmi in July

The Delhi High Court on Friday said it would hear in July an appeal by journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, challenging a single judge’s order in a defamation case filed against him by BJP leader Shazia Ilmi.

The appeal came up before a bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar which said it would hear the plea post vacations and listed it for July 2.

The single judge, on April 4, had granted partial relief to Ilmi in the defamation case. The court had confirmed its August 2024 interim order in which it had directed Sardesai to take down the video from his personal X handle.

The single judge had also imposed Rs 25,000 costs on Ilmi for “wilfully suppressing” certain facts in her plea claiming that she was defamed and her privacy was violated by a video journalist’s act of recording her even when the news debate show hosted by Sardesai was over and she had withdrawn her consent.

The court, however, had said that recording and publishing the part of the video, in which Ilmi was seen withdrawing herself from the live debate and moving out of the shooting frame, “violated her right to privacy”.

It had said Sardesai and the channel with whom he was associated could not have recorded or used that portion of the video in the absence of Ilmi’s express consent.

The court had said Ilmi’s allegations pertaining to the video recording of her removing the microphone, allegedly outraging her modesty or violating her privacy appeared to be “misconceived” and an “afterthought”.

The court had passed the order on an application by Ilmi seeking interim injunction against Sardesai and others.

The controversy arose after Ilmi took part in the debate Sardesai hosted on the news channel in July 2024 on the Agniveer scheme row. After some sharp exchanges between the two, Ilmi left the show midway.

Later, the journalist put out a video and a post on social media which Ilmi claimed were objectionable and a violation of her privacy.

“The show was over; my consent was over. Thereafter, I can’t be recorded in my personal space without my consent,” Ilmi’s counsel had contended in the court.