Delhi High Court Dismisses Objection by BJP Spokesperson and Economist Sanju Verma | Defamation Suit by Congress Spokeperson Shama Mohamed Maintainable
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed an application by BJP spokesperson Sanju Verma seeking rejection of a defamation suit filed against her by Congress spokesperson Shama Mohamed. The Court held that the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action, as the alleged defamatory remarks made during a television debate and disseminated on social media platforms could cause reputational harm within Delhi. Observing that the objections raised pertain to issues of jurisdiction and evidence to be determined at trial, the Court ruled that no ground existed at this stage to reject the plaint.
The matter arose from a civil suit for defamation instituted by Dr. Shama Mohamed, a Congress spokesperson, against BJP spokesperson Sanju Verma and media entities including Network-18, X Corp. (formerly Twitter), and Google LLC. The plaintiff alleged that defamatory remarks were made against her by Verma during a debate show organized by Network-18 on 20 August 2024. It was contended that these remarks were subsequently shared by third parties and further circulated on social media platforms operated by X Corp. and Google, thereby amplifying reputational harm.
The plaintiff stated that the defamatory material remained available in the public domain and continued to cause “continuous damage and harm to the reputation of the Plaintiff.” The plaint emphasized that the cause of action was ongoing and not barred by limitation. In support of her claim, the plaintiff relied on documents indicating that the statements were widely disseminated and accessible in Delhi, where she resides, thereby lowering her reputation in the eyes of the public.
The first defendant, Sanju Verma, moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arguing that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. Counsel for Verma pointed to inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s affidavit, which at one place indicated residence in Delhi and at another mentioned residence in Kerala. It was contended that such contradictions rendered the plaint untenable. Reliance was placed on earlier Delhi High Court decisions, including Escorts Ltd. v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia and Arvind Kejriwal v. State, to argue that the plaint should either be rejected or returned for presentation before a competent court.
In response, counsel for Mohamed submitted that the reference to Kerala was an inadvertent error and that the documents filed, including a lease deed, established residence in Delhi. It was argued that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that she accessed the defamatory content while in Delhi and that the defendants’ platforms, being operational within Delhi, amplified the defamatory remarks within the court’s jurisdiction. The plaintiff relied on the principle that defamation, as a civil wrong, ordinarily arises at the place of residence of the aggrieved person, thereby conferring jurisdiction on this court.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav considered the rival contentions and examined the pleadings in detail. The Court recorded: “A bare perusal of the plaint would indicate that the cause of action arose on 20.08.2024, when, defendant No. 1 made the alleged defamatory statements against the plaintiff, on the show organized by defendant No. 2. The said debate was shared by various third parties, who began to share the said alleged defamatory statements against the plaintiff on the social media platforms operated by defendant Nos. 3 and 4.”
The Court stated that the plaint fulfilled the requirements under Order VI and Order VII Rule 1(e) CPC: “If the aforesaid recital is perused in right perspective, it appears that the plaint on the face of it fulfils the necessary ingredients of the pleadings as required under Order VI and Order VII Rule 1(e) of the CPC.”
On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court referred to paragraph 18 of the plaint and observed: “With respect to the controversy as to whether the plaintiff is a resident of Delhi or otherwise, a perusal of the memo of parties, paragraph 18 of the plaint and other documents as presented alongwith plaint would indicate that the plaintiff is a resident of Delhi itself.” The Court noted that the affidavit reflected residences in both Delhi and Kerala, but clarified: “The affidavit mentioned both. But when the affidavit is considered in the right perspective, the same also mentions that the plaintiff also resides at Delhi.”
The Court explained the statutory framework: “In the civil suit for defamation, the plaintiff essentially seeks for the damages for wrong being to his/her reputation in the eyes of right-minded members of the society. In the suit for compensation for the wrong done to the plaintiff, Section 19 of the CPC, 1908 plays a quintessential role in delineating the choice of forum wherein the plaintiff can institute his/her claim.”
Regarding cyber defamation and multiple jurisdictions, the Court recalled its earlier jurisprudence: “In cases of cyber defamation, the cause of action may arise across multiple jurisdictions due to the widespread dissemination of the alleged defamatory content. However, the multiplicity of jurisdictions in which the cause of action arises does not confer upon the plaintiff an unfettered right to initiate proceedings in any or all such jurisdictions.”
On whether rejection was warranted at this stage, the Court stated: “At this stage, the averments in the plaint are to be treated as gospel truth and on this basis, the Court is satisfied that the prima facie ingredients for invoking its territorial jurisdiction are met, as the plaintiff has asserted her residence within the jurisdiction of this Court and potential damage to her reputation, was made.”
The Court concluded that these issues must be examined during trial: “If the defendants seek to establish that the maximum damage occurred elsewhere, that the plaintiff is in fact resident outside Delhi, or that the cause of action arose where any of the primary defendants reside, such contentions may be raised and adjudicated during the course of Trial, including by way of preliminary issues, if so permitted.”
Justice Kaurav held: “Having considered the overall factual matrix and the stage of the proceedings, the Court finds no ground at present to reject the plaint. The issues raised by the defendants pertain to matters that are to be examined during Trial and cannot form the basis for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at this stage.”
“Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.”
“It is submitted that I.A. 42959/2024 and I.A. 48473/2024 are interlinked. In I.A. 42959/2024, injunction is prayed and ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff. However, in I.A. 48473/2024, Mr. Awasthi has prayed for vacation of ad-interim ex-parte injunction. Therefore, both the applications are to be heard analogously.”
“The parties shall be at liberty to file brief note of their submissions, if not already filed, as to why the injunction should be granted or continued.”
“List this matter on 18.08.2025 for consideration of the aforesaid applications.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Abhik Chimni, Mr. Omar Hoda, Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Ms. Pranjal Abrol, and Mr. Gurupal Singh, Advocates.
For the Defendants: Mr. Raghav Awasthi, Ms. Simran Brar, and Mr. Fatehh Singh Majithia, Advocates, Mr. Mrinal Bharti, Mr. Santosh Kumar, and Mr. Swapnil Srivastava, Advocates, Mr. Deepak Gogia, Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal, and Ms. Shivangi Kohli, Advocates, Mr. Neel Mason, Ms. Pragya Jain, and Ms. Surabhii Katare, Advocates.
Case Title: Dr Shama Mohamed v. Sanju Verma & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7075
Case Number: CS(OS) 845/2024
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
