Satirical posts on Gaurav Bhatia not invasion of privacy, says HC

The Delhi High Court on Friday ruled that satirical and humorous social media posts about BJP leader and Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia’s recent television appearance do not amount to an invasion of his privacy.

Justice Amit Bansal observed that the posts stemmed from Bhatia’s own decision to participate in a live debate wearing a kurta and shorts. “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 noted.

The judge stressed that the threshold for defamation is higher for public figures and politically exposed persons. “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.”

At the same time, Justice Bansal underlined that “obscene and sexually suggestive language under the guise of free speech cannot be permissible under any circumstances”. The court ordered the removal of such posts made by the Samajwadi Party Media Cell and an X handle named @activistsandeep.

The court also directed the blocking of a morphed image of Bhatia with objectionable text shared by a user named Vish Patel.

The order followed the hearing of Bhatia’s plea on September 23 seeking the removal of nearly two dozen links and posts from Twitter and YouTube. These included content published by Newslaundry, journalist Abhisar Sharma, as well as politicians Ragini Nayak, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Rajkumar Bhati, Surendra Rajput and Srinivas BV.

Noting that many of the defendants were “members and representatives of rival political parties, news media platforms, social and political commentators and social media personalities who regularly engage in public discourse sharing their personal and political views with the public”, the court refused to grant ex-parte interim relief.

“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,” Justice Bansal said. The court issued summons on the suit and notice on the interim application. The matter is listed for further hearing on November 19.