The Delhi High Court granted the ex parte ad-interim injunction and issued summons in the civil suit.
Delhi High Court | Defamation & Social Media
Rajat Sharma Defamation Case: Delhi High Court Social Media Takedown Order and 2026 Status
Current position: On 14 June 2024, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of journalist Rajat Sharma in Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors., CS(OS) 495/2024. The Court directed removal of identified X posts and required specified videos to be made private. The civil suit remained pending in 2026; an order dated 25 March 2026 expressly continued the interim order.
- Case
- Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors.
- Case No.
- CS(OS) 495/2024
- Court
- High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Initial order
- 14 June 2024
- Nature
- Suit for permanent injunction and damages arising from alleged defamatory social-media publications
Background of the dispute
The dispute arose after Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera published or shared social-media posts alleging that Rajat Sharma had used abusive language against Nayak during a live television discussion on the 2024 Lok Sabha election results.
Sharma denied the allegation and approached the Delhi High Court seeking injunctions, removal of the posts and videos, and damages for defamation. The suit also arrayed social-media and online-platform entities as defendants.
What the Delhi High Court ordered on 14 June 2024
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna considered the material placed before the Court at the interim stage, including footage of the television programme. The Court recorded a prima facie view that the impugned posts amounted to over-sensationalisation and a depiction of facts that appeared false at that stage.
The Court directed that the identified X posts or tweets which had not already been removed be taken down within seven days in terms of the applicable intermediary framework. It further directed that the identified videos in the public domain be made private and not restored to the public domain without orders of the Court.
The order was an interim order, not a final adjudication of the civil suit. The Court's observations were therefore prima facie and made for deciding interim relief.
Freedom of speech and reputation
The Court acknowledged the right to freedom of speech and expression while observing that such freedom carries a corresponding obligation in relation to truthfulness. At the interim stage, it held that continued circulation of the impugned material could cause reputational harm that might not later be adequately repaired by damages.
The decision reflects the recurring judicial balance between Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech, the reasonable restrictions contemplated by Article 19(2), and the protection of reputation that Indian courts have treated as an aspect of Article 21.
Later proceedings and compliance
Sharma moved an application alleging non-compliance with the injunction. The High Court issued notice on the application.
Further directions were issued concerning compliance with the takedown order while disputes relating to the social-media material continued before the Court.
The Delhi High Court recorded that pleadings in two pending applications were complete, listed them for hearing on 14 July 2026, and expressly directed that the interim order would continue.
Important procedural point: The June 2024 order is an interim injunction. It should not be described as a final determination that every allegation or piece of disputed material was conclusively false. The merits of the civil suit remained subject to final adjudication.
Applicable legal framework
The civil injunction proceedings are governed principally by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including the law relating to temporary injunctions. Online takedown and intermediary compliance also engage the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as amended from time to time.
MeitY currently publishes an updated version of the IT Rules, 2021 incorporating amendments up to February 2026. For any present-day compliance issue, the current official version should be consulted rather than relying only on the wording in the 2024 order.
Separate criminal proceedings
In a separate criminal complaint arising from the same broader controversy, a Delhi court in February 2026 summoned Ragini Nayak, Pawan Khera and Jairam Ramesh for alleged defamation and forgery-related offences. That criminal proceeding is distinct from the Delhi High Court civil suit discussed on this page and should not be treated as a final finding of guilt.
Case reference
Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors., CS(OS) 495/2024, Delhi High Court. Key orders include the interim injunction dated 14 June 2024 and the order dated 25 March 2026 continuing the interim protection.