Delhi High Court Issues Summons To Meta, Others In Satirist Sanjay Rajoura's Defamation Suit Over 'Malicious' Posts
The Delhi High Court last week issued summons in a defamation suit filed by satirist Sanjay Rajoura over an alleged 'defamatory campaign' and a series of 'malicious' and 'false' social media posts targeting him. A bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan, however, did not grant any interim relief in the matter and only issued notice on the temporary injunction plea. The matter has been listed...
The Delhi High Court last week issued summons in a defamation suit filed by satirist Sanjay Rajoura over an alleged 'defamatory campaign' and a series of 'malicious' and 'false' social media posts targeting him.
A bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan, however, did not grant any interim relief in the matter and only issued notice on the temporary injunction plea. The matter has been listed for further consideration on September 21.
The individuals who have been issued summons are: Meenakshi Mishra, Jagisha Arora, Alok Ranjan, Shalin Srinet & Piyush Manush. Additionally, social media platforms Meta (Facebook) and Reddit have also been issued summons. They must file their written statement within 30 days.
In his suit, Rajoura has alleged that the defendants are running a sustained 'coordinated' online campaign of defamation portraying him as a predator, an abuser and someone who is engaged in criminal and immoral conduct
The plaintiff is also aggrieved by the alleged 'digital attack' institutionalised through a dedicated Instagram page titled "CallingOutSanjayRajoura" and amplified on platforms like Reddit.
The plaintiff states in his suit that there was a personal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1-Mishra, which commenced in June 2023 and was terminated in September 2024.
Following such termination of the relationship, the plaintiff states, defendant no. 1 allegedly resorted to threats, coercion and the misuse of legal mechanisms to harass the plaintiff.
This included filing a complaint before the National Commission for Women and initiating proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
However, the plaint adds that a Mahila Court dismissed the domestic violence complaint in December 2024. A subsequent review petition was also dismissed in April 2025.
Despite this, Rajoura claims that the cause of action for the present suit arose as the defendant no. 1 began publishing allegedly defamatory content on social media.
He states that on May 22, 2025, a Facebook post titled "Predators Among Progressives" explicitly named the plaintiff, associating him with individuals accused of grave misconduct and branding him a predator.
The plaintiff further submits that the 'defamatory campaign' subsequently expanded through republications, endorsements and independent posts by other defendants, who repeatedly called the plaintiff an abuser and objected to his invitation as a speaker at public events.
The plaintiff adds that the actions of the respondents satisfy all the essential ingredients of civil defamation, as the statements are false, defamatory per se, widely published, and made with actual malice and a reckless disregard for the truth.