In a significant development touching upon the intersection of privacy rights, freedom of expression, and social media accountability, the Delhi High Court has directed X Corp (formerly Twitter) to disclose the Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) of users who uploaded a controversial video involving Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Shazia Ilmi and a journalist from India Today. The Court’s directive follows the continued online circulation of a short 18-second video, despite earlier takedown orders, which allegedly invaded Ilmi’s privacy.
Background of the Controversy
The case revolves around a heated political television debate hosted on July 26, 2024, by journalist Rajdeep Sardesai for India Today. Shazia Ilmi, participating remotely, clashed with Sardesai and another panelist—Major General (Retd.) Yash Mor—over the contentious Agnipath military recruitment scheme. The argument escalated, and Ilmi eventually withdrew from the discussion.
Shortly afterward, Sardesai shared a video on X, alleging that Ilmi abused the India Today video journalist present at her residence and even threw him out after the altercation. Ilmi responded with claims that her privacy was breached, as the journalist continued recording even after she had withdrawn from the debate. She also accused Sardesai of defamatory conduct and filed a civil defamation suit before the Delhi High Court.
Interim and Final Takedown Orders
In response to Ilmi’s suit, the Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction in August 2024 directing Rajdeep Sardesai to take down the video in question. This order was confirmed on April 4, 2025, when the Court explicitly held that the video violated Ilmi’s right to privacy and must not remain online.
Despite this, the video continued to circulate across social media platforms—particularly on X—shared and re-shared by multiple users. This prompted the Court to issue contempt notices to those uploading or disseminating the video and direct X Corp to disclose their BSI.
X Corp’s Plea and the Court’s Response
X Corp approached the Court seeking a modification of the order requiring it to disclose BSI data of the offending users. The company argued that user privacy must be protected, suggesting that such data should be submitted in a sealed cover and, where necessary, masked to protect anonymity.
However, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora of the Delhi High Court dismissed this plea, stating:
“This is not the case where X can say it will not provide the information. In this matter, I am summoning them. How do I summon them without them being a part of my record?”
She further criticized the persistent violation of the Court’s April 4 order, noting that the continued circulation of the video alongside the Court’s judgment made a “mockery” of judicial authority.
Accordingly, X was directed to comply with the April 9 order and furnish the BSI data of the involved users within 36 hours.
Open Questions on User Privacy
While the Court refused to entertain X Corp’s request to withhold user information in the current case, it did acknowledge the broader legal question regarding the privacy rights of social media users.
“The contentions raised in this application regarding the privacy of the users of X Corp is kept reserved to be determined in the appropriate proceedings and cannot be determined in this matter,” the Court clarified.
This statement leaves the door open for future adjudication on how far privacy protections for social media users can extend, especially when allegations of contempt of court and defamation are involved.
Legal and Constitutional Issues at Stake
1. Right to Privacy vs. Freedom of Expression
This case has brought renewed focus on the balance between an individual’s right to privacy and the freedom of expression exercised by third-party users on social media. The Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21. However, that right is not absolute and can be restricted to protect other rights and uphold public order or judicial processes.
2. Intermediary Liability
As an intermediary, X Corp is bound by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The Rules require platforms to take down unlawful content when ordered by a court and to disclose user data to competent authorities under lawful instructions. Failure to do so can result in the platform losing its ‘safe harbour’ protection under Section 79 of the IT Act.
3. Defamation and Contempt of Court
Ilmi’s defamation claim against Sardesai and contempt proceedings against X users raise critical questions about legal responsibility in the digital age. While platforms often argue they are neutral carriers, courts are increasingly holding them accountable for aiding the spread of unlawful content once put on notice.
Implications for Social Media Platforms
This ruling sets a significant precedent for how Indian courts expect compliance from social media platforms. It signals a shift toward greater accountability, especially when judicial orders are flouted in the digital space.
If social media companies like X fail to swiftly comply with takedown or disclosure directives, they risk not only judicial criticism but also potential criminal and civil liabilities.
Political and Public Reactions
The case has political undertones, with BJP leader Ilmi alleging bias and hostility from mainstream media. On the other hand, journalists and digital rights activists have expressed concerns over the growing trend of legal gag orders and their impact on media freedom.
Critics of the Court’s order argue that compelling platforms to reveal user data, even in defamation or privacy-related matters, could have a chilling effect on free speech. Supporters argue that privacy cannot be used as a shield for unlawful actions, especially in contemptuous defiance of judicial orders.
Next Steps and Hearing Date
The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on August 29, 2025. By then, X Corp is expected to comply with the disclosure order. The Court may also take up the larger issue of privacy protections for users of digital platforms during that hearing.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s firm stance in the Shazia Ilmi defamation case represents a growing judicial trend of holding tech platforms accountable for user-generated content that violates court orders. While the privacy of users remains a legitimate concern, courts appear inclined to prioritize judicial enforcement and legal compliance over broad claims of digital anonymity—especially in cases involving contempt and defamation.
As the digital public square continues to expand, India’s legal system is slowly shaping a nuanced jurisprudence to navigate the complexities of online speech, platform liability, and user rights. The outcome of this case could set the tone for future litigation involving digital expression and judicial oversight.
