Delhi court grants interim relief to Bansuri Swaraj; restrains AAP, others from sharing video on her detention

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Thursday granted interim relief to BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj in a defamation suit filed against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Saurabh Bharadwaj and others, restraining them from circulating or publishing allegedly defamatory content linked to a viral video of her detention during a political protest.

Principal District and Sessions Judge (South) Gurvinder Pal Singh of Saket Courts restrained the defendants, including Ankush Narang and the Aam Aadmi Party, from “continuing to publish, host, uploading/circulating/reposting or disseminating” the impugned video dated April 19 and related press conference content dated April 21 across social media platforms.

The court observed that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and would suffer “irreparable harm” if the injunction was not granted.

“The right of reputation of a living individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be sacrificed and crucified at the altar of the right of freedom of speech and expression of another,” the court said, stressing the need to balance both rights.

The court further held that “irreparable loss and injury would be caused to Plaintiff if the aforesaid defamatory content is allowed to remain in the public domain,” adding that the balance of convenience also lay in her favour.

The suit arises from a video posted by Bharadwaj on April 19, allegedly portraying Swaraj as staging her own detention during a BJP protest march on April 18. The plaintiff contended that the video falsely depicted her holding the hand of a “police officer”, whereas the individual was in fact Union Minister of State Raksha Khadse.

According to the plea, the video was edited with captions and visual elements to create a “false and misleading narrative” and was widely circulated across platforms including Instagram, X and Facebook, garnering substantial public viewership.

After examining the allegedly defamatory content, the court observed that such material constituted a “malicious attack upon the unblemished reputation and good name of the Plaintiff”. It added that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants by restraining the content at this stage, stating that “injunction is to prevent harm in future and not to redress the past deed.”

The court directed the defendants to “forthwith take down and remove the same from all such social media platforms” and to postpone any further publication of the material till the next date of hearing. It also directed that in case of non-compliance within 48 hours, the plaintiff would be at liberty to approach social media platforms with a copy of the order for removal of the content.

During the hearing, counsel for the defendants opposed the grant of interim relief, arguing that they had insufficient time to respond and that the alleged video was not ex facie defamatory. It was also contended that the plea sought a “gag order” and lacked specific details.

However, the court rejected these submissions, holding that the material on record justified interim protection.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 13.

The defendants have been directed to file their written statement within 30 days and reply to the interim injunction application within 15 days.

IANS