Delhi High Court Urges Sanju Verma to Withdraw “Blot on Uniform” Remark Against Former IPS Officer Yashovardhan Azad
The Delhi High Court has urged social media commentator Sanju Verma to withdraw her “blot on the uniform” remark against former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad, observing that while free speech is protected under Article 19(1)(a), it must be balanced with the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
New Delhi:(Yashovardhan Azad v. Sanju Verma) The Delhi High Court has urged social media commentator Sanju Verma to withdraw her remark describing former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad as a “blot on the uniform”, observing that such statements may cause serious reputational harm.
The observation was made while hearing a plea filed by Azad, who alleged that the remark amounted to defamation and exceeded the permissible limits of fair criticism.
Background of the Case
Yashovardhan Azad, a former Indian Police Service officer, approached the High Court contending that the impugned remark attacked his integrity and professional reputation without any judicial or factual determination. He argued that such language could not be justified as opinion or political commentary.
Delhi High Court’s Observations
The High Court noted that while freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. The Court urged Sanju Verma to consider withdrawing the remark, observing that:
- Public criticism must remain fair, reasonable, and proportionate.
- Statements imputing dishonour or moral delinquency can have lasting reputational consequences.
- Freedom of expression does not extend to unwarranted personal vilification.
Balancing Free Speech and Right to Reputation
The Court emphasised the need to balance:
- Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression; and
- Article 21 – Right to life, which includes the right to reputation.
The Bench observed that constitutional freedoms must be exercised responsibly, particularly when commentary concerns individuals who have served in public office.
Relevant Case Law
- Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 – The Supreme Court held that the right to reputation is an integral part of Article 21 and can justify reasonable restrictions on free speech.
- Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600 – The Court distinguished legitimate opinion from defamatory statements while recognising the importance of free expression.
- Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy (2006) 7 SCC 1 – Reckless and unsubstantiated allegations harming reputation can give rise to civil liability.
Legal Significance
The order highlights the judiciary’s role in promoting responsible public discourse and reiterates that criticism of public figures must be rooted in facts and fairness. It reinforces that constitutional protection of speech does not confer immunity from accountability.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.