Sudhir Chaudhary Reports Post Removal in Delhi High Court Amid Misidentification Case
On Tuesday, prominent journalist Sudhir Chaudhary appeared before the Delhi High Court to report the removal of all social media posts that mistakenly identified activist Vijay Sherawat. The posts had inaccurately attributed inflammatory slogans, allegedly calling for the destruction of Parliament and the creation of a “Nepal-like situation” in India, to Sherawat during the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) protest.
Representing Chaudhary and his production company, Essprit Productions, Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan informed Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the deliberate decision to retract these posts. “I have taken it down on my own. We have taken a conscious decision to take it down,” Krishnan stated, further adding that they have requested social media platforms to remove any third-party posts containing the same misinformation.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela is presiding over the defamation suit filed by Sherawat against Chaudhary and DD News, regarding a broadcast aired on August 27. The program, DECODE, hosted by Chaudhary, had allegedly misidentified Sherawat, displaying his image as the individual making the contentious statements, “Sansad bhawan ukhad diya jayega… Nepal bana diya jayega.” Sherawat is demanding damages amounting to ₹5 crore, asserting that the statements were made by another, unidentified individual at a different event.
The suit claims inadequate verification was conducted before airing the segment, and Sherawat had not been given an opportunity to clarify his position. Consequently, following the broadcast, the clip was widely redistributed across X and Instagram, resulting in Sherawat receiving severe threats, including those to his life and physical harm.
Despite posting a clarification on his Instagram account, the reach was significantly limited compared to the national broadcast, which boasts 1.4 billion digital views. The legal action is being pursued through Advocates Pushp Sharma, Aditya Narayan Shukla, Jai Allagh, and Prasoon Shekhar.
During the recent hearing, while acknowledging Krishnan’s statement about the post removals, the Bench also noted Sherawat’s incomplete court fee payment, with only ₹100 deposited out of the required ₹4.90 lakh. Sherawat’s legal counsel requested additional time, citing his status as a student. The court granted this plea, allowing more time for fee submission.
Although Krishnan argued that the post removals should render the case moot, Sherawat expressed his intention to continue pursuing the legal proceedings. The court has scheduled the next hearing for January.
