Introduction:

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday was informed that journalist Sudhir Chaudhary had removed social media posts in which a student activist alleged that he had been wrongly identified as the person who made controversial statements during a political protest in June. The development came during the hearing of a defamation suit instituted by 20-year-old student activist and UPSC aspirant Vijay Sherawat, who has alleged that statements relating to destruction of Parliament and turning India into Nepal were incorrectly attributed to him during a broadcast aired on DD News.

The matter is titled Vijay Sherawat v. Sudh1r Chaudhary and Ors. and is being heard by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court. The suit concerns a broadcast hosted by Chaudhary on his daily prime-time programme “Decode” on July 27. Sherawat has sought injunctive relief against the defendants, seeking to restrain them from telecasting, hosting, publishing, circulating or disseminating the impugned telecast on the ground that the contents are defamatory.

The dispute arises from an alleged identification of Sherawat in connection with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest held in June. According to Sherawat, the impugned broadcast attributed to him statements suggesting that Parliament should be destroyed and that India should be turned into Nepal. Sherawat maintains that he never made such statements and that the attribution was factually incorrect.

The plaintiff’s case is that the broadcast did not merely report or discuss statements allegedly made during the protest but specifically connected those statements to him. He claims that the defendants thereby portrayed him as having made remarks that he had never made. According to his case, the publication was made without adequate verification of the relevant facts and caused injury to his reputation.

The defamation suit consequently seeks judicial protection against further publication and dissemination of the allegedly defamatory material. The plaintiff has sought an injunction preventing the defendants from continuing to host, publish, circulate or otherwise disseminate the July 27 broadcast.

The hearing before Justice Gedela took a significant turn when Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, appearing for Chaudhary, informed the Court that the journalist had independently removed the social media posts in question. The submission was that the posts containing the alleged misidentification had already been taken down and, therefore, nothing further remained to be adjudicated in relation to those posts.

Krishnan submitted that since the material had been removed voluntarily, the proceedings could be closed. The plaintiff, however, did not agree that the matter had become infructuous. His counsel informed the Court that Sherawat wished to pursue the proceedings.

The disagreement therefore concerned whether the voluntary removal of the social media posts was sufficient to bring the controversy to an end. While the defendants maintained that the takedown substantially resolved the immediate grievance, the plaintiff sought to continue with the case.

Justice Gedela consequently did not close the proceedings. Instead, the Court directed that the matter would be heard further in January 2027.

The order thus does not amount to a final determination of whether the statements complained of were defamatory, whether Sherawat was in fact wrongly identified, or whether the defendants would ultimately be restrained from further publication. Those substantive issues remain to be considered in the proceedings.

The case raises questions that frequently arise in defamation litigation involving digital publications and broadcast content, particularly where a person claims that a statement made by one individual has been wrongly attributed to another. It also illustrates the distinction between removal of disputed online content and final adjudication of the legal claims arising from its publication.

Arguments of the Parties:

On behalf of Sudhir Chaudhary and the other defendants, Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan informed the Delhi High Court that the social media posts complained of by Vijay Sherawat had already been removed. The submission was significant because the plaintiff had sought relief in relation to the publication and dissemination of material which he alleged had wrongly identified him in connection with the statements made during the June protest.

Krishnan told Justice Tushar Rao Gedela that Chaudhary had taken down the posts on his own. According to the submission, the removal was voluntary and had already taken place by the time the matter was considered by the Court.

The defendants’ position, as presented during the hearing, was therefore that the immediate grievance concerning the social media posts no longer survived. Since the posts had been deleted, counsel submitted that there was nothing further remaining in relation to that aspect of the dispute and that the matter could consequently be closed.

The submission essentially sought to bring the proceedings to an end on the basis that the allegedly offending material was no longer available through the posts in question. The defendants did not, as reflected in the hearing summary, seek a detailed adjudication of the truth or falsity of the allegations at that stage. Instead, their immediate contention was that the voluntary removal of the material had rendered the controversy incapable of further consideration to the extent that the deleted posts were concerned.

The plaintiff, however, took a different position. Counsel appearing for Vijay Sherawat opposed the suggestion that the matter should be closed merely because the posts had been removed. The plaintiff expressed his intention to continue with the proceedings.

Sherawat’s case is founded on the allegation that he was wrongly identified in relation to statements made during the CJP protest. According to the plaint, he did not make the statements attributed to him and had been incorrectly portrayed as the person responsible for remarks concerning the destruction of Parliament and transforming India into Nepal.

The plaintiff’s contention is that the impugned broadcast of July 27 on “Decode” carried an imputation against him by connecting his identity with statements that he says were never made by him. He has alleged that the defendants attributed the statements to him without proper regard for the factual position.

The alleged misidentification assumes particular importance because, according to the plaintiff, the statements attributed to him were serious and capable of affecting his reputation. Sherawat is a young student activist and UPSC aspirant, and his case is that the broadcast and related social media material presented him to the public as someone who had made statements which he denies having made.

The suit therefore seeks more than the mere deletion of individual social media posts. Sherawat has sought an injunction against the defendants from telecasting, hosting, publishing, circulating or disseminating the July 27 telecast. His decision to continue the litigation despite the removal of the social media posts indicates that, from his perspective, deletion of the online material does not dispose of the broader grievance concerning the broadcast and its alleged consequences.

The plaintiff’s insistence on continuing the proceedings also leaves open the question of whether the removal of the posts adequately addresses the relief sought in the suit. The parties appear to differ on the legal effect of the takedown. For the defendants, removal meant that the immediate publication complained of had ceased to remain online. For the plaintiff, however, the underlying grievance concerning the alleged defamatory attribution and the broadcast itself continued.

The Court was therefore presented with two competing positions. The defendants sought closure based on the voluntary removal of the social media posts, while the plaintiff maintained that the larger dispute remained alive and that he was entitled to pursue his legal remedies.

The proceedings at this stage did not involve a final adjudication of the competing factual assertions. The Court was not asked to determine whether Sherawat actually made the alleged statements or whether the defendants had correctly or incorrectly identified him. Those matters remain issues for consideration in the substantive proceedings.

Nor, on the material presently available, did the Court record a final finding that the broadcast was defamatory or that the journalist had committed defamation. The allegations made in the suit remain allegations unless and until adjudicated upon by the Court.

The limited issue arising from the hearing was therefore whether the voluntary deletion of the social media posts was sufficient to dispose of the proceedings. The plaintiff’s opposition meant that the Court could not simply close the matter on the basis of the defendants’ submission.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela did not close the proceedings despite being informed that Sudhir Chaudhary had voluntarily removed the social media posts concerning the alleged identification of Vijay Sherawat.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan submitted that Chaudhary had deleted the posts on his own. The defendants’ submission was that, because the posts had been taken down, the issue no longer survived and the matter could be brought to an end.

The plaintiff’s counsel, however, stated that Vijay Sherawat wanted to proceed with the matter. This position was important because the relief sought in the suit was not confined solely to the continued availability of the particular social media posts. Sherawat’s suit also challenges the alleged attribution made in the July 27 “Decode” broadcast and seeks an injunction against further telecasting, hosting, publishing, circulating or disseminating the material.

In these circumstances, the Court did not accept the defendants’ request to close the matter at this stage. Justice Gedela directed that the case would now be heard in January 2027.

The order is therefore procedural in nature and should not be understood as a final ruling on the merits of the defamation allegations. The Court has not, at this stage, conclusively determined whether the broadcast was defamatory, whether Sherawat was wrongly identified, whether the statements were actually made by him, or whether any permanent or interim injunction should be granted.

The significance of the hearing lies in the fact that the voluntary removal of online content did not, by itself, bring the entire dispute to an end. The plaintiff’s decision to continue with the suit means that the Court may still be required to examine the broader controversy surrounding the broadcast and the alleged identification.

In defamation proceedings, the removal of disputed content can become relevant to the question of continuing publication, but the legal controversy may extend beyond the mere availability of the material online. A plaintiff may continue to pursue relief concerning the publication itself, the alleged injury to reputation and any further dissemination that the plaintiff seeks to restrain, subject of course to the applicable legal requirements and the Court’s eventual findings.

The present proceedings illustrate that distinction. The defendants’ submission focused upon the fact that the social media posts had been removed. The plaintiff’s response focused upon the continuing nature of his grievance concerning the alleged false attribution and the July 27 broadcast.

The Court consequently left the substantive questions open for a later hearing. By fixing the matter for January 2027, Justice Gedela has provided an opportunity for the parties to place their respective positions before the Court on the remaining issues.

The plaintiff’s central allegation remains that the defendants wrongly connected him with statements allegedly made during the CJP protest. According to Sherawat, he never made remarks advocating the destruction of Parliament or threatening that India would be turned into Nepal. His case is that these statements were incorrectly attributed to him and that the attribution was made without adequate verification.

The defendants, for their part, have informed the Court that the relevant social media posts have already been removed voluntarily. Whether that action has any further legal consequence, including whether it addresses any part of the relief sought by the plaintiff, remains to be considered in the proceedings.

The Court’s decision to continue the matter also means that the removal of the posts should not presently be treated as either an admission of liability or a judicial finding that the allegations made by Sherawat are established. The record, as reflected in the hearing, only establishes that counsel for Chaudhary informed the Court that the posts had been deleted.

Similarly, the Court’s decision to list the matter for a future hearing does not constitute a finding that the journalist’s conduct was defamatory. The substantive allegations remain to be examined in accordance with the pleadings, evidence and applicable law.

The case also brings into focus the growing importance of accuracy in identifying individuals in news reports and digital publications. Where a person alleges that statements made by someone else have been attributed to him, the question of identity can become central to a defamation claim. The consequences may be particularly significant where the alleged statements concern politically sensitive or controversial events.

At the same time, the adjudication of such disputes requires the Court to consider the complete factual and legal context rather than deciding liability solely on the basis of an isolated statement. Issues concerning what was actually published, how the person was identified, the context in which the material appeared, whether the publication contained an imputation concerning the plaintiff, and the relief legally available to the plaintiff would have to be assessed in accordance with the pleadings and evidence.

No such final assessment has been undertaken in the present hearing. The Court has only dealt with the immediate procedural development concerning the deletion of the social media posts and the plaintiff’s insistence that the litigation should continue.

The matter has accordingly been adjourned for hearing in January 2027. Until then, the parties’ respective positions remain contested. Sherawat continues to pursue his defamation suit and seeks injunctive relief against further publication and dissemination of the impugned material, while the defendants have placed on record that the disputed social media posts have been removed.

The proceedings will therefore continue before the Delhi High Court, where the Court will have an opportunity to consider the remaining issues raised by the plaintiff and the response of the defendants. The eventual determination will depend upon the pleadings, material placed before the Court and the legal principles governing defamation and injunctive relief.

For the present, the principal development is that the alleged misidentification posts have been taken down, but the plaintiff has declined to treat that step as bringing his legal challenge to an end. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has consequently kept the matter alive and listed it for further hearing in January 2027.