‘Was in shorts’: BJP’s Gaurav Bhatia moves Delhi High Court to take down posts on his viral TV appearance
BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia has filed a defamation suit in Delhi High Court seeking removal of derogatory social media posts stemming from his viral TV appearance in kurta. Bhatia argues that the digitally altered content violates his privacy and reputation.
Senior Advocate and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia has approached the Delhi High Court, urging the removal of social media posts he claims are defamatory and digitally altered, stemming from a widely circulated television debate video.
Justice Amit Bansal heard the matter on Tuesday, September 22. The Court said it will go through the material and will pass orders on Thursday.
Bhatia, a popular face representing the ruling party during debates, appeared on a TV news show earlier this month, where he was seen wearing only a kurta — allegedly without pants or pyjamas — during the introduction, triggering a flood of memes and jokes.
Was in shorts: Bhatia
Bhatia informed the Court that on September 12, while he was "in the comfort of [his] home," unauthorised images and videos were shared online. He asserted that the material was defamatory, violated his privacy, and in some cases included inappropriate references to male genitalia.
Advocate Raghav Awasthi appeared for Bhatia today and said that he was wearing shorts and the cameraman showed the bottom half of his body by mistake, according to legal news website Bar and Bench. Awasthi stated that social media posts related to the incident violate Bhatia's privacy and objectionable comments must be removed, Bar and Bench said.
Bhatia's defamation suit has sought removal of posts by Samajwadi Party media cell, news platform Newslaundry, politicians like Aam Aadmi Party's Saurabh Bharadwaj and Congress' Ragini Nayak and journalists including Abhisar Sharma.
He emphasised that any content containing vulgar language or such references should be removed, noting that "a person's reputation is built over time." He further alleged that some of the visuals were either AI-generated or manipulated.
The Court clarified that while it will injunct defamatory material referring to Bhatia's private parts etc but satirical or sarcastic content related to the incident will not be restricted.
Justice Bansal acknowledged that obscene remarks are unacceptable but highlighted the need to differentiate between satire and defamation.
"Being in politics requires a thick skin," he commented, adding that the Court must carefully assess what crosses the line from satire into offence.
Inherently offensive
YouTube's legal representative stated that of the eight URLs flagged, two were unrelated to the issue. The Court noted that any directive must first target the original publishers of the content, and only if they fail to respond would platforms like YouTube be held accountable.
During proceedings, the judge also questioned whether terms like "nanga" are inherently offensive and raised concerns about the absence of content moderation on certain channels.
The Court also said that it must be very careful while passing an ex parte injunction order. "We have to be very careful. The Supreme Court has said that you should not pass ex parte orders in such cases. We have to be very careful," the judge remarked.