Video showing journalist uttering alleged objectionable word 'not edited': X tells Delhi High Court

New Delhi: Social media platform X has contended before the Delhi High Court that the video clip in which senior journalist Rajat Sharma could be heard uttering allegedly an objectionable word to Congress leader Ragini Nayak during a TV debate cannot be construed to be "edited".

X claimed that the video in the social media posts which Sharma seeks to remove from its platform matches with his channel India TV's own livestream and is prima facie "authentic".

The micro-blogging site has approached the high court seeking vacation of an ad-interim injunction order by which X Corp, Google India and Meta platforms were required to remove social media posts if they are not deleted by Congress leaders Jairam Ramesh, Pawan Khera and Ragini Nayak.

The application-cum-reply has been filed by X in the pending suit of Sharma in which he sought removal of the alleged offensive posts and videos against him on social media and restraining the political leaders from making allegations against him.

Justice Manmeet P S Arora issued a notice and asked the journalist to respond to file response to X's application. He listed it for further hearing on August 22.

Meanwhile, the counsel for the three Congress leaders submitted that in compliance with the high court's June 14 order, they will delete the social media posts authored by them.

However, the take down of posts will be without prejudice to their rights and contentions on the merits of the matter, the counsel said.

Justice Arora asked X to unblock the particular URLs which it claimed to have geo-blocked in pursuance of the court order by 5 pm on Friday and inform the Congress leaders about it.

Upon being informed, the leaders shall immediately delete the tweets, latest by 7 pm on Friday, the high court said.

"In the unlikely event that defendant nos. 4 to 6 (Congress leaders) breach the undertaking given to this court and do not take down the impugned tweets listed above by 7 PM on July 12, the plaintiff shall notify the defendant no. 1 (X) about the non-compliance by 8 PM on July 12. Upon receiving intimation from the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 shall on or before 8 PM on July 13 once again block the above listed URLs," it said.

The journalist has claimed that he was defamed by the Congress leaders over use of "abusive language" during his show on June 4, the day counting of the Lok Sabha elections was taking place.

X, in its application-cum-reply, said, "This court cannot conclude that the video is 'edited' or that it contains 'insertions' merely on the basis of plaintiff's (Sharma) vague and unsubstantiated assertions… The injunction order should be vacated because it has prejudiced the trial in the suit by already returning an unsubstantiated finding that the video is edited at a preliminary stage, when prima facie there was no 'editing'." It said since the injunction application of the plaintiff fails to establish that the content is "malicious" or "palpably false", granting an injunction would also stifle public debate and allow the misuse of litigation to suppress public participation.

The controversy arose after Nayak accused Sharma of abusing her on national television during a debate on his show on the election results day.

Sharma is the chairman and editor-in-chief of Independent News Service Private Limited (INDIA TV).

Sharma's counsel had said while the debate was happening on the channel on the evening of June 4, the Congress leaders started tweeting only on June 10 and 11.

He had contended that a clip of the show was being circulated where an abusive term had been inserted whereas the original footage did not have any such content.