The Delhi court directed on Thursday The Aam Aadmi Party has removed allegedly defamatory videos against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj linked to her arrest during an earlier protest. Swaraj welcomed the decision and accused AAP leader Saurabh Bhardwaj of spreading misinformation. She said that this incident revealed the “anti-women face” of the party.
“The anti-women face of the Aam Aadmi Party has come to the fore again… Saurabh Bhardwaj released a video spreading lies about me and Raksha Khadse. For this reason, I sent him a legal notice. After that, he held a press conference to promote and publish this video. I welcome the court’s decision,” she told news agency ANI.
The controversy is linked to a video posted on April 19 during a A BJP protest march, which Swaraj said was wrongly demonstrated by her conduct while in detention.
It claimed that the video falsely implied that the incident was staged, and wrongly identified Union Minister Raksha Khadse as a police officer, creating a misleading narrative. The video, titled ‘Bharati Drama Company’, was also allegedly hyped up by party functionaries.
In her petition, Swaraj alleged that the video was selectively edited with captions, overlays and comments to mock her and damage her reputation. She also said its reach was amplified after it was reshared and discussed at a press conference.
As per court directions issued by Principal District and Sessions Judge Gurvinder Pal Singh of Saket Courts, the video dated April 19 and related remarks made at the press conference on April 21 should be removed from platforms like X, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube. Opposition leader Ankush Narang of the MDC is also covering the matter, Live Law reported.
The court also ordered that in case of non-compliance within 48 hours, Swaraj will be free to approach social media intermediaries to remove the content.
The court said Swaraj had made a prima facie case and ordered the defendants, including AAP, not to publish, republish or share the disputed content on any platform.
The court said that a person’s right to reputation is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, however, must be balanced with the right to freedom of expression. It also noted that financial compensation cannot fully repair the damage to someone’s reputation and, therefore, it was appropriate to grant interim protection in this case.
The court is scheduled to hear the case again on May 13.
