Sudhir Chaudhary Removes Posts: Delhi HC Defamation Suit Continues

• Journalist Sudhir Chaudhary informed the Delhi High Court that social media posts central to a defamation suit had been voluntarily removed.
• Activist Vijay Sherawat filed a ₹5 crore defamation suit against Chaudhary, Essprit Productions, and DD News for alleged misidentification and false attribution of statements.
• Sherawat denied making the statements and opposed Chaudhary's request to close the case following the content removal.
• The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, directed the defamation suit to continue, with the next hearing scheduled for January 2027.
• The court has not yet adjudicated the merits of Sherawat's defamation allegations, leaving the case pending despite the defendant's mitigation efforts.

Despite the voluntary removal of the allegedly defamatory content by the defendant, the plaintiff has insisted on pursuing the ₹5 crore defamation suit, highlighting that such mitigation efforts do not automatically conclude legal proceedings.

Journalist Sudhir Chaudhary recently informed the Delhi High Court that social media posts, which are central to a significant defamation lawsuit, had been voluntarily removed. This disclosure was made during a hearing concerning a ₹5 crore defamation suit filed by activist Vijay Sherawat against Chaudhary, his production company Essprit Productions, and DD News.

The core of the dispute revolves around allegations that Chaudhary's program misidentified Sherawat and falsely attributed inflammatory statements to him. Despite Chaudhary's counsel asserting that the content was taken down by choice, Sherawat has firmly stated his intention to proceed with the legal action, underscoring that such mitigation efforts do not automatically lead to the conclusion of a defamation case.

This ongoing legal battle, known as Vijay Sherawat v. Sudhir Chaudhary and Ors., highlights a crucial aspect of defamation law in India: the voluntary removal of allegedly defamatory material by a defendant does not necessarily satisfy a plaintiff or compel the cessation of legal proceedings, particularly when substantial damages are sought.

The defamation suit stems from a broadcast of Chaudhary's program, "DECODE," which Sherawat, a 20-year-old activist and UPSC aspirant, alleges wrongly identified him. According to Sherawat's complaint, the program displayed his image and attributed statements about "destroying" Parliament and creating a "Nepal-like situation" in India during a Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest.

Sherawat vehemently denies making these statements, asserting that they were uttered by a different, unidentified individual at a separate event. His suit further contends that the defendants failed to adequately verify the identity of the person making the statements prior to the broadcast and did not offer him an opportunity to respond. The use of low-quality footage in the broadcast allegedly made it difficult to distinguish between the two individuals, contributing to the misidentification.

Following its dissemination, the broadcast was widely circulated on social media platforms, leading to Sherawat reportedly receiving threats. These alleged consequences form a significant part of the basis for the ₹5 crore defamation suit, emphasizing the lasting impact of widely disseminated content, even after mitigation efforts.

During the proceedings before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court on September 22, 2026, Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, representing Sudhir Chaudhary and Essprit Productions, informed the court about the removal of the social media posts. Krishnan stated, "I have taken it down on my own. We have taken a conscious decision to take it down," indicating a proactive step by the defendants to address the contentious content.

Furthermore, Krishnan conveyed that requests had been sent to social media intermediaries to remove any remaining third-party posts related to the matter. He also expressed no objection if the Court were to issue specific directions to social media platforms regarding content removal. Based on these actions, Chaudhary's legal team sought to have the proceedings closed, arguing that with the posts removed, nothing substantial remained to be adjudicated.

However, the Delhi High Court had previously issued summons to Chaudhary, Essprit Productions, and DD News in the suit, also seeking their response to Sherawat’s plea for interim relief. These earlier actions indicate the court's initial recognition of the seriousness of the allegations in this defamation suit.

Despite the defendant's voluntary content removal and subsequent request for closure, Vijay Sherawat firmly opposed the submission, reiterating his desire to continue with the ₹5 crore defamation suit. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, after considering the arguments, directed that the matter proceed, scheduling the next hearing for January 2027.

Crucially, the court has not, at this stage, adjudicated the merits of Sherawat’s defamation allegations. This means that the central claims of misidentification, false attribution, and the alleged failures of the defendants remain to be thoroughly examined. The decision to continue the case underscores that voluntary content removal, while a potential defamation mitigation strategy, does not automatically absolve a defendant of liability or conclude a legal action, especially when a plaintiff seeks substantial damages.

This case illustrates that voluntary removal of allegedly defamatory content by a defendant, even before a court order, may not be sufficient to close a defamation suit. Lawyers should advise clients that plaintiffs might still pursue damages, emphasizing the need for robust pre-publication verification and comprehensive legal strategies to address the lasting impact of widely disseminated content, even after mitigation efforts.

Source: Original reporting via legal news sources.