CourtKutchehry

Gaurav Bhatia Moves Delhi High Court to Remove ‘Defamatory’ Social Media Posts Over Viral TV Appearance

BJP spokesperson says he was wearing shorts during News18 debate, seeks removal of posts alleging he was without pants

Court to decide on Thursday; Justice Amit Bansal says satire will not be restricted but obscene remarks may be taken down

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, September 23, 2025:
Senior Advocate and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia has approached the Delhi High Court seeking the removal of what he calls “defamatory and privacy-violating” social media posts following his recent appearance on a television news debate. The controversy stems from a viral video clip that appeared to show him on screen without visible trousers.

The matter was heard today by Justice Amit Bansal, who directed Bhatia’s counsel, Advocate Raghav Awasthi, to submit a detailed list of all offending URLs. The court will review the material and issue its order on Thursday, September 25.

The Viral Incident

On September 12, 2025, Bhatia participated in a debate on the News18 show Aar Paar, hosted by journalist Amish Devgan. Appearing from his home, Bhatia was dressed in a pink kurta and shorts. However, a particular camera angle during the guest introductions showed the lower half of his body in a way that made it appear he was not wearing any pants.

The clip quickly spread across social media platforms, accompanied by captions, memes, and comments — some satirical, others crude. Several posts alleged that Bhatia was “without pants” or made references to male private parts.

Bhatia’s Stand in Court

Bhatia told the court that he was “in the privacy of my home” and wearing shorts, not trousers, during the debate. He argued that the cameraman’s framing error led to the misleading impression.

“Such photos should not be circulated without my consent, and the statements should be injuncted,” Bhatia said, adding that his reputation, built over decades, was being harmed by irresponsible remarks.

His counsel, Advocate Awasthi, stressed that the incident occurred inside Bhatia’s private residence and that the circulation of the video amounted to an invasion of privacy. He emphasised that references to male private parts in public discourse were unacceptable and should be removed.

Defamation Suit and Named Respondents

Bhatia’s defamation suit names several individuals and organisations as defendants, including:

Samajwadi Party Media Cell
Aam Aadmi Party leader Saurabh Bharadwaj
Congress leader Ragini Nayak
Journalist Abhisar Sharma
Media platforms such as Newslaundry and News18

He has also flagged certain YouTube videos, alleging that some visuals were AI-generated or manipulated.

Court’s Observations

Justice Amit Bansal acknowledged that obscene remarks are unacceptable and may be injuncted. However, he clarified that satirical or sarcastic content related to the incident would not be restricted.

“Being in politics requires a thick skin,” the judge remarked, adding that the court must carefully assess where satire crosses into offence.

The judge also questioned whether terms like “nanga” (naked) are inherently offensive and raised concerns about the lack of content moderation on certain channels.

Platform Responsibility

During the hearing, YouTube’s legal representatives stated that of the eight URLs flagged by Bhatia, two were unrelated to the matter. The court noted that any directive must first target the original publishers of the content, and platforms like YouTube would be held accountable only if they fail to respond to takedown requests.

Justice Bansal also cautioned against passing ex parte injunction orders in such cases, citing Supreme Court guidelines.

Political and Public Reactions

The incident has sparked a mix of reactions online. Supporters of Bhatia argue that the viral clip is a case of digital harassment and privacy violation, while critics have used it as fodder for political satire.

Some political opponents have shared the clip with captions mocking Bhatia’s attire, while others have questioned the ethics of circulating such footage.

Legal Context

Defamation in India can be pursued under both civil and criminal law. Civil defamation allows the aggrieved party to seek damages, while criminal defamation can lead to fines or imprisonment. In cases involving social media, courts often balance the right to reputation with freedom of expression, especially when satire or humour is involved.

The Delhi High Court’s eventual ruling in this case could set an important precedent for how privacy and reputation are protected in the age of viral content.

Bhatia’s Key Arguments

Privacy Violation: The video was recorded inside his home without his consent for public circulation.
Defamation: Posts making vulgar references to male private parts harm his reputation.
Misleading Visuals: He was wearing shorts, but the camera angle created a false impression.
AI Manipulation: Some visuals may have been digitally altered.

Court’s Next Steps

The court will review the list of URLs submitted by Bhatia’s counsel and decide on Thursday whether to issue an interim order for removal of certain posts. The judge has indicated that only explicitly defamatory content will be targeted, while satire and humour will remain protected under free speech principles.

Broader Implications

This case highlights the challenges faced by public figures in the digital age:

Instant Virality: A few seconds of video can be clipped, shared, and amplified within minutes.
Blurred Lines: Distinguishing between satire, humour, and defamation is often subjective.
Platform Accountability: Social media companies face increasing pressure to moderate content while respecting free speech.
Privacy in Public Life: Politicians and public figures must navigate the tension between their public roles and private lives.

Awaiting Thursday’s Verdict

As the Delhi High Court prepares to deliver its decision, the case continues to attract public attention. Whether the court sides with Bhatia’s plea for removal or upholds the right to satire will be closely watched by legal experts, media houses, and political circles alike.

For now, Bhatia maintains that the incident was a camera error, not a deliberate act, and that the resulting online commentary has crossed the line from humour into harmful defamation.

Gaurav Bhatia Seeks HC Relief Against Viral Defamation Posts