-
by sayum
20 February 2026 9:48 AM
Trial by Social Media Is Not Lawful Redress—‘Chucked the Mic’ & ‘Threw Him Out’ Comments Not Substantially True: Delhi High Court Orders Takedown of 18-Second Video Recorded After Live Debate Exit; Rebukes Use of Private Footage Without Consent Under Guise of Commentary
In a detailed judgment Delhi High Court in Shazia Ilmi v. Rajdeep Sardesai & Ors. Granted partial interim relief to Shazia Ilmi by restraining the circulation of a controversial 18-second video clip recorded inside her home after she had exited a live TV debate. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the video, recorded without her express consent, constituted a prima facie violation of her right to privacy and cannot be used to justify defamatory commentary by journalist Rajdeep Sardesai.
“The Plaintiff’s consent to record video came to an end when she withdrew from the live debate and walked away from the chair and shooting frame.”
“The use of the 18-second clip without her consent is violative of her privacy. Trial by social media at the behest of the Defendants is impermissible in law.”
The Court directed that the ad-interim injunction issued earlier, restraining circulation of the video, shall continue until final disposal of the suit.
“Chuck the Mic” and “Throw Him Out” Comments Not Protected as ‘Truth’—HC Finds No Justification in Video or Witness Affidavits
The second part of Sardesai’s quote tweet alleged that Ilmi “chucked the mic,” “abused” and “threw out” the cameraman. However, after watching the video and analyzing evidence, the Court held:
“By no reasonable interpretation can it be claimed that the mic was ‘chucked’ by the Plaintiff.”
“The phrase ‘throw him out of your house’ falsely suggests physical force, which is not reflected either in the footage or in Defendant No.12’s affidavit.”
“Such overstatements created a sensationalized narrative and are not substantially correct.”
These remarks, the Court held, cannot be shielded by the defence of truth, and further aggravated reputational harm caused by unauthorized publication of the video.
“Right to Privacy Extends to the Home—Even Public Figures Cannot Be
Filmed Without Consent After Disengaging”
The Court applied landmark privacy rulings including K.S. Puttaswamy and R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, observing: “A person within the confines of their home has a right to be left alone and to not be recorded without consent once they withdraw from public engagement.”
The Court held that once Ilmi walked away from the debate, styled her hair differently, and began hobbling due to a fractured foot, it was evident she no longer wished to be recorded. The cameraman’s continued filming—even if claimed to be due to a technical lag—could not justify post-facto circulation: “The 18-second video clip does not fall under the ‘harm’ exception from the Gobind v. State of MP doctrine. Mere verbal altercation is not legally actionable harm.”
“Abuse” Comment Stands—But Rest of the Quote Tweet is Unfounded and Influential Beyond Its Truth Value
While the Court agreed that Ilmi used harsh language and that describing it as “abuse” was substantially true, it condemned the way the rest of the tweet influenced perception: “Use of charged expressions by a well-known journalist on a conversational medium like ‘X’ had instantaneous effect and led to widespread misreporting.”
“The comment ‘chuck the mic’ and ‘throw him out’ are overstatements designed to sensationalize and are unsupported by video or testimony.”
Video Circulation Barred, Selective Text Tweet Allowed with Clarifications
The Court ordered: The 18-second video clip shall remain taken down and cannot be circulated. The first portion of the tweet (addressing technical issues and professional respect) is allowed. The second portion, containing exaggerated phrases, is not protected under ‘truth’ and is the subject of further trial. The suit shall continue for final adjudication on damages and permanent injunction.
Date of Decision: April 4, 2025
