The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka whether they would voluntarily remove disputed social media posts concerning BJP leader and senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia. The court was hearing Bhatia’s ₹2 crore defamation suit over allegedly fabricated remarks attributed to him about Swatantra Bhardwaj. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said the court would prefer voluntary removal rather than immediately ordering a takedown. The CJP members agreed to consider removing the posts within 24 hours.What Is The Defamation Case?The Gaurav Bhatia defamation case involves an allegedly AI-generated social media post that used his photograph and attributed remarks about Swatantra Bhardwaj to him. Bhatia has denied making the remarks and filed a ₹2 crore defamation suit against CJP members. The Delhi High Court has now asked the members whether they will voluntarily remove the disputed posts.What Did Delhi HC Ask CJP?The court’s main focus was whether the disputed posts could be removed voluntarily, avoiding an immediate judicial takedown order. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela also stressed that public criticism should be expressed responsibly and that allegations should be verified before being shared online. The hearing also questioned why CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke had been included as a defendant when the immediate allegations appeared to concern posts by Das and Ranka.CJP leaders were asked to consider removing the disputed posts voluntarily.Saurav Das’s counsel said one disputed post had already been deleted.The court noted that another post had also been published.Abhijeet Dipke’s role as a defendant was questioned during the hearing.Bhatia has sought ₹2 crore in damages along with injunctions against the defendants.Defamation Suit Followed AI GraphicThe dispute began after an AI-generated graphic was circulated on social media following the arrest of Swatantra Bhardwaj. The graphic allegedly used Bhatia’s photograph and attributed remarks about Bhardwaj to him. Bhatia denied making those statements and objected to the post, saying it created a false association between him and the alleged remarks.Bhatia subsequently approached the Delhi High Court against CJP, its founder Abhijeet Dipke and co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. He sought ₹2 crore in damages and permanent as well as mandatory injunctions. Reports said the disputed post had received significant online circulation before being deleted.Also Read: Gandhinagar Ceiling Collapse: 15 Workers Rescued After Slab FallsCourt Stresses Responsible ExpressionThe latest hearing highlights the court’s concern over online allegations and the need for verification before publishing or sharing claims. Justice Gedela observed that there are different ways to protest and told the young CJP members that criticism could be expressed in a more articulate manner. The judge also questioned Bhatia about why he had approached the court without first attempting to resolve the dispute directly.The court did not issue a final ruling on the defamation allegations during this hearing. Instead, the defendants were asked to take instructions regarding voluntary removal of the disputed content. The matter therefore remains focused on the next response from the CJP side and the further proceedings in the civil defamation case.Key HighlightsDelhi High Court heard Gaurav Bhatia’s ₹2 crore defamation suit.CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were asked about voluntary takedown.The dispute involves an allegedly AI-generated graphic attributed to Bhatia.Bhatia has denied making the remarks concerning Swatantra Bhardwaj.Court questioned the inclusion of CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke.The court stressed verification and responsible expression on social media.ConclusionThe Gaurav Bhatia defamation case remains under consideration before the Delhi High Court, with the latest hearing focusing on voluntary removal of the disputed social media posts. CJP members have been asked to consider taking down the content, while the court has also questioned the parties about their approach to the dispute. No final finding on defamation has been delivered at this stage. The next proceedings will clarify how the matter moves forward.Disclaimer: This article is provided only for knowledge and news-information purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
