Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Relief in Anjana Om Kashyap's Rs 2 Crore Defamation Suit Against Khan Sir

The Delhi High Court has issued notice but declined, for now, to grant interim relief in a defamation suit filed by journalist Anjana Om Kashyap and TV Today Network against educator Faisal Khan, popularly known as Khan Sir, and others. The plaintiffs have sought damages of Rs 2 crore and the removal of allegedly defamatory content from online and social media platforms. The case is a useful illustration of how Indian courts approach the tension between reputation and free speech at the interim stage. For the underlying procedure, our guide on how to file a defamation case under the BNS 2023 sets out the framework.

The Allegations

According to court reports, counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendants had used highly abusive language against the journalist, that the statements amounted to an attempt to incite hostility against her, and that the remarks had also targeted her family. The plaintiffs sought an interim order restraining the defendants from further disseminating the alleged defamatory material, alongside the claim for damages.

The dispute is connected to a wider public controversy involving coaching educators and television coverage of star teachers, unfolding against the backdrop of the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak and cancellation, a subject that has generated considerable online discussion.

Why the Court Declined Interim Relief

The Court, presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna as reported, observed that it would first hear all parties before considering any interim relief, and accordingly issued notice to the defendants while declining an immediate injunction. This reflects a settled judicial caution: a pre-trial gag on speech is a strong remedy, and courts are generally reluctant to grant it without hearing the other side.

In defamation matters, an interim injunction restraining publication touches directly on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, subject to the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2) that include defamation. Courts weigh whether the statements are prima facie defamatory, whether a defence such as truth or fair comment is plausible, and whether damages would be an adequate remedy, before muzzling speech in advance of trial.

Civil and Criminal Defamation

Indian law recognises both civil defamation, where the remedy is damages and an injunction, and criminal defamation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, where the consequence is prosecution. The present suit is civil in nature, seeking damages and removal of content. The distinction matters because the burden, procedure and outcomes differ. Our explainer on civil and criminal defamation remedies walks through both tracks.

Notably, the plaintiffs here include a media organisation, even though defamation litigation is often associated with claims against the media. This underscores that the law of reputation protects everyone, including journalists, and that the same free-speech considerations apply regardless of who is suing whom.

The Test for an Interim Injunction

When a court considers whether to restrain allegedly defamatory speech before trial, it applies the familiar three-fold test for interim injunctions: whether there is a prima facie case, where the balance of convenience lies, and whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury that damages cannot remedy. In speech cases, courts add a layer of caution, because a pre-trial restraint silences expression before its truth or falsity has been tested. A defendant who pleads justification, namely that the statements are true, or fair comment on a matter of public interest, will often persuade a court to let the matter proceed to trial rather than gag the speech in advance.

What Happens Next

With notice issued, the defendants will file their responses, and the Court will hear the application for interim relief on its merits after all parties have been heard. The eventual question of damages, if any, will be decided only at trial. Until then, the refusal of an interim injunction means the alleged content is not, at this stage, the subject of a court-ordered takedown.

For the wider public, the case is a reminder that strong words on social media and broadcast platforms carry legal consequences. A person who feels defamed can sue for damages and seek removal of content, but the speaker is entitled to defend the statements as true or as fair comment. The court process exists to weigh these competing claims carefully rather than to silence one side at the first hearing, which is why an early notice without interim relief is a balanced outcome.

Related Reading

For another recent high-profile defamation matter, see how the Supreme Court referred the Rohini Sindhuri and Roopa Moudgil feud to mediation.

On the removal of damaging online content through a different route, read about the right to be forgotten recognised under an Article 21 framework.

Key Takeaways

Courts are slow to grant pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases because they directly restrict speech protected by Article 19(1)(a). Issuing notice without interim relief, as happened here, is a common and principled outcome. A plaintiff seeking an early restraint must show a strong prima facie case, and even a substantial damages claim does not guarantee an interim gag. The matter will now proceed on notice, with interim relief to be considered after all parties are heard.