Spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Gaurav Bhatia, has approached the Delhi High Court, where he is seeking the removal of what he says are defamatory social-media posts appearing after his appearance on a news program. The case was heard on Tuesday by Justice Amit Bansal, who promised to make orders on Thursday following the review of the material.
The scandal had started with the interview of Gaurav Bhatia on September 12. He was in some shorts and a simple kurta, and he was shooting from the comfort of his house. The one that was aired on television, however, accidentally revealed the lower part of his body. This was then posted in others, with some users enhancing it with edited clips and even generating images that depicted the leader inappropriately using AI. According to Bhatia, such distortions have infringed his privacy and damaged his reputation since some of the posts contained direct mention of the male genitalia.
In his appeal, Bhatia asked that any material containing vulgar language or the supposed sexual allusions be taken out. He also emphasized that a mistake committed by a cameraman is not an excuse for the resultant defamatory commentary, including that the person was coming out of a PMO meeting. Although Justice Bansal admitted that obscene statements are not acceptable, he made it clear that a satire or sarcasm remark pertaining to the incident would not be curtailed, and it was important that a politician must possess a thick skin.
The bench also debated whether terms such as nanga (naked) are offensive in nature, and the concern was whether channels are moderated or not. Advocate Raghav Awasthi, who was representing Bhatia, maintained that the cameraman had inadvertently captured the lower half of the body of the leader and that the post by AAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj was malicious, as well as those of Congress leader Ragini Nayak, the media cell of Samajwadi Party, the Newslaundry site, and the news articles of journalists like Abhisar Sharma, were all malicious.
The legal department at YouTube indicated that out of the eight URLs reported on the situation, two had no connection to the case, and the court again stated that an order has to be issued against the original publishers. The platforms would only be held accountable in case they do not comply. Justice Bansal reminded that the ex parte injunctions should be avoided, and a Supreme Court order, which is that this order should not be granted in a similar case, made the judge wary of his decision.
Click Here for Chhattisgarh News
Click Here for Entertainment News