Delhi High Court Suggests CJP's Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka Take Down Posts Against Gaurav Bhatia - Live Law

**Delhi High Court urges CJP members to remove defamatory posts against senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia**

New Delhi – The Delhi High Court on Wednesday prompted three members of the newly formed Civilian Justice Platform (CJP) – Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka and senior advocate Abhijeet Dipke – to voluntarily delete a series of social‑media posts that the BJP‑aligned senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia alleges are false and damaging to his reputation. Bhatia, a prominent lawyer and former member of the Delhi Legislative Assembly, has filed a Rs 2 crore defamation suit against the three CJP activists, accusing them of circulating unverified allegations that he misused his position to influence court proceedings. The court’s observation, conveyed through a written order, was that the respondents should “consider the gravity of the allegations and the public interest” and, if they have no substantive defence, take down the posts within 24 hours.

In response to the court’s suggestion, the CJP members issued a joint statement saying they would comply with the order and remove the contested material “at the earliest opportunity.” The statement, posted on the platform’s official Twitter handle, claimed that the posts were made in the heat of a political debate and that the authors “acted without proper verification of facts.” Legal counsel for the CJP argued that the removal would not constitute an admission of guilt, but rather a step towards de‑escalating what they described as a “politically motivated” litigation. The court, while not issuing a coercive injunction, warned that failure to comply could invite contempt proceedings.

The defamation case, lodged in the Delhi High Court in early August, is the latest episode in a widening rift between members of the legal fraternity and political actors in the capital. Bhatia’s petition seeks a permanent injunction against the respondents, damages of Rs 2 crore, and a formal apology. Legal experts note that the case underscores the growing use of civil defamation suits by politicians to curb online criticism, while also highlighting the challenges courts face in balancing freedom of expression with protection of reputation. The matter remains pending, and further hearings are scheduled for later this month.