The Delhi High Court recently ordered Twitter to remove defamatory posts that allegedly harmed the reputation of Shama Mohamed, a National Spokesperson for the Indian National Congress (INC).

The bench headed by Justice Vikas Mahajan addressing the case, remarked, “I am satisfied that grave and irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the plaintiff if an ad-interim injunction is not granted in her favour. The balance of convenience also lies in her favour."

The lawsuit, seeking a permanent injunction, named Sanju Verma as a defendant and focused on alleged defamatory remarks. Shama Mohamed, known for her work as a national spokesperson for the INC, is also a trained dentist and serves as Chairperson and Trustee of the Zoya Charitable Trust, an NGO. Sanju Verma, affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is also a spokesperson, and the media conglomerate ‘TV-18’ was involved as a co-defendant.

According to the plaintiff, Sanju Verma made defamatory statements during an August 20, 2024, televised debate hosted by TV-18, which discussed an incident at West Bengal's RG Kar Hospital. The exchange later circulated on social media through platforms managed by Twitter and Google.

Representing Shama Mohamed, Advocate Eesha Bakshi argued that Verma had used derogatory terms, including "Madrassa Bred Bigot," and questioned Mohamed’s professional credentials, negatively portraying her. Advocate Bakshi emphasized that these statements were not only offensive but defamatory, significantly impacting her client’s public image.

Advocate Bakshi noted that TV-18 had published the debate recording on its YouTube channel, which gained extensive traction, spreading widely on social media. She also pointed out that Sanju Verma had repeatedly used inflammatory language toward INC members and other opposition figures. She cited prior incidents, including a 2019 debate where Verma’s statements were criticized by the BJP's Maharashtra Unit.

Further, Bakshi highlighted TV-18’s recurring role in broadcasting potentially defamatory content, mentioning that complaints to the National Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority had led to sanctions against the network for breaching broadcast standards.

Following a legal notice on September 16, 2024, Shama Mohamed stated that Sanju Verma had acknowledged using terms such as "Madrassa Bred Bigot" and questioned her qualifications as a doctor. Consequently, Mohamed sought an ex parte interim injunction to have these remarks removed from social media.

The court reviewed statements attributed to Verma, including phrases like “Bewakoof Aurat,” “Shama Mohamed is as shameless as they come,” and “Madrassa Bred Bigot,” concluding that these comments appeared defamatory and damaging to Mohamed’s reputation. The court also examined associated social media comments that failed to meet acceptable public discourse standards.

Recognizing the importance of reputation in preserving personal dignity, the court underscored that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly in defamation cases. The court stressed the need to protect public figures from unfounded defamatory remarks that could harm their public image.

Considering precedents balancing free expression with protecting reputation, the Court concluded that Shama Mohamed had sufficiently demonstrated grounds for interim relief, as denying the injunction could lead to irreparable harm.

Representing the petitioner were Advocates Muhammad Ali Khan, Omar Hoda, Eesha Bakshi, S. M. Khursheed, Uday Bhatia, and K. Sharma.