The Delhi High Court on Thursday instructed Cockroach Janta Party co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka to take down allegedly objectionable social media posts directed at Bharatiya Janata Party national spokesperson and senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, following an assurance from their legal counsel that the material would be removed within 24 hours.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued formal summonses to Das, Ranka, the CJP, and the outfit’s founder Abhijeet Dipke in connection with Bhatia’s civil defamation lawsuit. While issuing notice, the court orally remarked that the plea lacked material against Dipke. The bench also kept the issue of interim relief open to allow the defendants to place their stand on record, while granting Bhatia liberty to approach social media platforms X and Meta Platforms should other posts featuring the disputed graphic remain accessible online.
Court Urges Responsible Expression Among Youth
The lawsuit arose after the CJP and its office-bearers circulated a graphic carrying a quote falsely attributed to the senior lawyer. Although Das had earlier deleted a September 5 post on X after describing it as generated by artificial intelligence, Bhatia approached the court seeking an unqualified apology and a permanent injunction against the political group.
During the proceedings, Justice Gedela emphasized that the youth possess the right to express their views and dissent, but stressed that such expression requires verification and must be articulated constructively. Acknowledging that young individuals often experience anxiety, the judge observed that public statements should be conveyed responsibly and properly rather than disseminated without fact-checking.
Mediation Declined As Defamation Plea Continues
Bhatia, who argued his case in person, declined a suggestion by the bench to explore mediation. He instead pressed for an immediate restraining order to prevent the defendants from circulating further defamatory commentary on the subject. When legal representatives for Das and Ranka stated they would not provide an undertaking barring future publications, the court noted that Bhatia remained free to seek legal recourse again if fresh issues emerged.
The bench remarked that disputes of this nature could sometimes be resolved through direct communication rather than court filings, adding that every individual goes through the same stage of youth. Bhatia, however, maintained that he had never shared fabricated material. He argued that the repeated posts before a large online audience amounted to aggravated defamation, and pointed out that Das had shared another disparaging post on X even as the hearing was underway, contending that such conduct warranted no leniency.
Allegations Of Habitual Misrepresentation
In his petition, Bhatia accused the CJP leadership of a consistent pattern of targeting individuals online by publishing false representations of statements they never made, rather than offering genuine criticism or disagreement. The lawsuit further contended that the group frequently makes remarks that undermine the authority and dignity of the judiciary.
The CJP, which initially began as a digital campaign, previously spearheaded protests at Jantar Mantar regarding the alleged paper leak in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test.
