“Right to Be Left Alone”: Delhi High Court Directs Takedown of 18-Second Video Recorded Without Consent, Finds Tweet Allegations “Not Substantially Correct”
Isabella Mariam
The Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora of the Delhi High Court directed the removal of an 18-second video recorded inside the residence of the plaintiff after she exited a live television debate. The Court held that the video was recorded without her consent and violated her right to privacy. It confirmed an earlier ad-interim order and disposed of the plaintiff’s application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The plaintiff, a former journalist and current national spokesperson of a political party, alleged that her participation in a live debate hosted on July 26, 2024, by Defendant No. 1 and aired on Defendant No. 2’s news network, ended when her audio was muted mid-discussion. She then left the shooting frame at her residence, having consented to a pre-agreed setup involving Defendant No. 12, a cameraman from the broadcasting network.
The Court noted: “The Plaintiff had consented to participating in the live debate hosted by Defendant No. 1 on the platform of Defendant No. 2... joined the live debate virtually from her home and had consented to the video recording of her views.”
After withdrawing, Defendant No. 12 allegedly continued recording without the plaintiff’s consent, capturing footage within her residence for approximately 40 seconds. An 18-second segment from this recording was posted by Defendant No. 1 on his personal X (formerly Twitter) handle with accompanying text that the plaintiff had “chucked the mike,” “abused our video journalist,” and “thrown him out of your house.”
The plaintiff challenged both the unauthorized recording and the accompanying statements as violative of her right to privacy and dignity.
The Court confirmed that the video comprised three parts and specifically addressed the first 40 seconds. “In this application, this Court is concerned specifically with the 40 seconds video footage, which was admittedly shot at the residence of the Plaintiff.”
Of this footage, the first 22 seconds showed the plaintiff removing her microphone and exiting the frame, which had also aired live. The Court noted: “To this extent, this Court finds merit in the submission of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that the Plaintiff had waived privacy rights vis-à-vis the first 22 seconds... she did not instruct Defendant No. 12 to stop recording her before she started removing her microphone.”
With regard to the subsequent 18 seconds, the Court stated: “Upon careful examination... various parts of the Plaintiff’s residence, including her bedroom, are visible... she was in the comfort and privacy of her home, a space where she had a reasonable expectation of being undisturbed.”
“The Plaintiff has her right to privacy and her right to be left alone qua these 18 seconds portion of the impugned video.”
“The consent of the Plaintiff to record her video in her house as a part of the participation in the live debate came to an end the moment, the Plaintiff withdrew herself from the live debate and walked away from the chair and shooting frame.”
The Court held that the continued use of this 18-second video clip without express consent was impermissible: “Trial by social media at the behest of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 against the Plaintiff by using this video footage of 18 seconds on their social media handle without her consent would be impermissible in law.”
The Court further stated: “The Defendant No.1, 2 and 12 also could not have used the said video footage of 18 seconds as no ‘Harm’ was caused by the Plaintiff against the Defendant No. 12...”
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had contended that the plaintiff's behaviour justified publication of the video to expose alleged misconduct. The Court examined the transcript of the verbal exchange and observed: “The verbal altercation... at the highest qualifies as verbal abuse. This abuse is not actionable in law (penal or otherwise).”
The Court then assessed whether the accompanying tweet by Defendant No. 1 was protected under the defence of truth. The tweet was found to have two parts: a response to the plaintiff’s earlier political commentary, and a description of her conduct based on the video.
On the unobjected first part, the Court held: “In absence of any objection by the Plaintiff to the first part, this Court holds that the Defendant No. 1 is at liberty to retain the first part of the text portion of Impugned Quote Tweet.”
On the second part, the Court reviewed the four contested phrases: “chuck the mike,” “abuse our video journalist,” “throw him out of your house,” and “no excuse for bad behaviour.”
On “chuck the mike”: “...cannot be said to be substantially correct as it is without any basis and contrary to the video footages; not affording this comment, the protection of defence of truth.”
On “throw him out of your house”: “...bound to give an impression... as though, Plaintiff physically pushed out Defendant No. 12... which is factually inaccurate... This comment... is not substantially correct and therefore, not saved by defence of truth.”
The Court further remarked: “...comment ‘chuck the mike’ and ‘throw him out of your house’ is an overstatement, intended to create a sensationalized narrative...”
However, the assertion that the plaintiff “abused our video journalist” was found to be supportable: “...would certainly fall within the definition of abuse and to this extent... the comment... is prima facie saved by the defence of truth.”
Consequently, the Court held: “The final comment of Defendant No. 1 ‘no excuse for bad behaviour’ would be prima facie maintainable on this ground alone.”
The judgment noted the impact of public perception when such content is shared by a journalist with a wide reach: “The tendency of the reader to believe the accuracy of the comment posted by Defendant No. 1 would be higher.”
The plaintiff had omitted two tweets from her pleadings, referred to as Suppressed Tweet Nos. 1 and 2. The Court observed: “The Plaintiff ought to have made a full disclosure of the said tweets published by her especially as the contents of the said tweets have a direct bearing...”
The Court then addressed the applicability of journalistic norms. While the plaintiff invoked journalistic conduct guidelines, the Court held: “This Court finds that the Impugned Quote Tweet of Defendant No. 1 would not be covered by the Norms of Journalistic Conduct as it was not being published as a journalistic piece of news and is in the nature of the personal comment... with the express approval of Defendant No. 2.”
Defendants’ reliance on U.S. case law such as Martin v. Senators, Inc. and Metter v. Los Angeles was rejected: “...in the opinion of this Court are distinguishable in the facts of the present case and also in light of the findings given by this Court.”
The Court confirmed its earlier injunction directing that the 18-second portion of the video be removed from all platforms managed by Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 12, and also from social media accounts and websites operated by Defendant Nos. 6 to 10.
The order concludes as follows:
“Before parting this Court would like to take note of the fact that since the Plaintiff had willfully suppressed two (2) tweets which formed part of the same conversation thread of which the Impugned Quote Tweet was part of and therefore, the Plaintiff is saddled with the cost of Rs. 25,000/- payable to Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association, through the Secretary within a period of three (3) weeks. In this regard, an affidavit of compliance shall be filed within two (2) weeks thereafter.”
“In view of the aforesaid findings and observations the application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC stands disposed of.”
“Needless to mention that any observation made hereinabove are prima facie in nature and only for the purpose of disposal of the captioned application and will not tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Plaintiff: Ms. Natasha Garg and Mr. Thakur Ankit Singh
For Defendants: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr. Anurag MishraMr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Ms. Mashu Bishnoi, Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Yash Karunakaran, Mr. Tanuj Sharma, Mr. Sauhard Alung
Case Title: Shazia Ilmi v. Rajdeep Sardesai & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2325
Case Number: CS(OS) 632/2024
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
[Read/Download order]
