BJP leader Shazia Ilmi. File photo
| Photo Credit: THE HINDU

The Delhi High Court on Friday (April 4, 2025) imposed ₹25,000 costs on BJP leader Shazia Ilmi for “wilfully suppressing” complete facts in her plea alleging defamation and violation of her privacy during a show hosted by journalist Rajdeep Sardesai.

The court, however, said recording and publishing the part of the video, in which Ms. Ilmi was seen withdrawing herself from a live debate and moving out of the shooting frame, violated her “right to privacy”.

The controversy erupted when Ms Ilmi participated in a debate hosted by Mr Sardesai on the news channel in July 2024 premised on ‘Kargil Diwas’ and Agniveers scheme. Following a series of heated exchanges, Ms. Ilmi exited the show midway.

Ms. Ilmi stated that cameraman continued to unauthorisedly recorded video of her, while she was removing the mike; hobbling to get out of the chair. She stated that despite her request to the cameraman to stop recording, he did not.

Later, Mr. Sardesai put out a video and a post on X which Ms. Ilmi claimed were objectionable and a violation of her privacy.

The court remarked that Mr. Sardesai and the TV channel could not have recorded or used the portion of the video, which was objected to by Ms. Ilmi, “in absence of the express consent” from her.

However, Ms. Ilmi’s allegations relating to the video recording of her removing the microphone, allegedly outraging her modesty or violating her privacy appeared to be “misconceived” and an “afterthought”, the court held.

The court said if Ms. Ilmi did not want the act of removing her microphone to be recorded, she should have first asked the video journalist recording her to stop, confirmed it and then proceeded to remove her microphone.

Mr. Sardesai was in August 2024 directed by way of an interim order to take down the video from his personal X handle. On Friday, the court confirmed the interim order.

Ms. Ilmi, on the other hand, was asked to approach the court with “clean hands” for she alleged defamation on the basis of a conversation on an X thread.

The court said she must have mandatorily disclosed the full conversation thread, particularly her own tweets or comments.

“Before parting, this court would like to take note of the fact that since the plaintiff (Ms Ilmi) had willfully suppressed two 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 ₹25,000 payable to Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association, through the secretary within a period of three weeks,” Justice Arora said.