'Relation Can Go Sour, But…': Delhi HC Orally Flags 'Serious Imputations' In Social Media Posts Against Journalist Omar Rashid

Justice Manoj Jain, while hearing the suit, observed that certain material had "gone beyond limits", but clarified that the Court was not making any final observation at this stage as the defendants were yet to place their stand on record.

" There are certain things which have gone beyond limits but we are not making any observation because we still do not have your stand in writing before us " the Court said.

The Court further observed that the fact that a relationship may have deteriorated cannot by itself justify making serious assertions unless they are capable of being substantiated.

" But then there are certain serious imputations. If you fail to justify then you are inviting some trouble for yourself also. We understand a relation can go sour, but that doesn't mean that the person should be you know indulging in such type of you know assertions unless it is fully corroborated. We do not know how would you corroborate it " Justice Jain remarked.

Rashid has approached the High Court regarding social media posts published in May 2025, alleging that the posts were part of a campaign intended to damage his reputation, both personally and professionally.

According to submissions made on his behalf, one of the posts was published on Instagram on May 21, 2025 through an anonymous account using the name "Anon Feminist". The post allegedly accused Rashid, then associated with The Wire, of rape and of forcing a woman to eat beef.

Rashid's counsel submitted that the allegations were given a communal colour by referring to his Muslim identity and the alleged consumption of beef.

" Immediately, because this is given a fully communal angle that I have made her eat beef, I have I am Muslim, she is Hindu, I have made her do all of this. Immediately I start getting death threats, I start getting, my mother starts getting, my dead mother gets threats " counsel submitted.

The Court was also told that Rashid and his family allegedly received communal abuse and threats, following which he had to leave his residence. " My family, the kind of communal threats that are there all of those documents show that. I had to leave my house " his counsel said.

Rashid's counsel submitted that the National Human Rights Commission had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter and initiated an inquiry. As the proceedings remained pending, Rashid approached the Delhi High Court seeking their expeditious conclusion. According to his counsel, the High Court subsequently directed the NHRC to take a decision.

Rashid's Counsel said that during the ensuing inquiry, the Delhi Police was asked to approach the woman concerned and ascertain whether she wished to pursue criminal proceedings. " She makes a statement that she does not want to pursue any criminal proceedings " counsel told the Court. The NHRC proceedings ultimately concluded on March 13, 2026.

Rashid's counsel submitted that he thereafter collected the relevant material and instituted the present proceedings. He further said that Rashid's employment was restored following the conclusion of the NHRC proceedings.

The Court was also taken through alleged subsequent social media material concerning Rashid. His counsel submitted that even after the conclusion of the NHRC proceedings and Rashid's return to his professional work, further posts continued to target him.

Referring to material placed in the petition, Rashid's counsel pointed to a post asking: " Why is this rapist working with The Wire? " He argued that such posts continued to cause professional harm to Rashid and urged that the material be removed.

" They should as a matter of bona fides let you say you will take down the post. What benefit does it give them to keep the post on today? " counsel submitted.

He also referred to other posts containing references to Rashid's journalistic work, religion and alleged conduct.

During the hearing, the Court encouraged the parties to consider whether the dispute could be resolved amicably. The advocate appearing for Defendant No. 1 (woman) said he was appearing for the first time and would need instructions from his client.

The Court asked: "Is it possible to find some solution of the matter? Is it possible to find some solution of the matter?"

Justice Jain subsequently said: " Why don't you seek instructions? This is not you know going to help anyone if we if it is you know on board as a contested matter. We do not know what happened. You know you both know better. So why don't you sit together, find some solution ."

The Court later told counsel to obtain clear instructions, observing: " We will like to get it resolved amicably. All other matters intended or filed already would be taken care of automatically ."

The plaintiff's counsel, however, expressed concern that once the defendants filed their substantive stand, the dispute could become more difficult to resolve. The Court disagreed with the suggestion that settlement would necessarily become impossible after pleadings, observing that matters can be settled even at the stage of final arguments.

" We have seen matters getting settled even at the stage of final arguments. How do you say that " the Court said.

During the hearing, Defendant-woman’s counsel also sought an interim direction concerning media reporting of the proceedings. " In the mean time your Lordship the media is circulating this news and may kindly restrain the media to... " counsel began.

The Court, however, indicated that it would consider the issue alongside other aspects of the matter rather than issue a one-sided order at that stage. " We'll see everything together sir. It can't be one sided " Justice Datta said.

The Court also asked the opposite parties whether they would have an objection to the posts in question being taken down. It was stated that such relief should not be granted without considering the relevant applications and pleadings .

The Court granted Rashid time to pay the Court fee, as his counsel subsequently undertook to deposit the amount within a week and indicated that it could be done within two days.

The Court directed that replies to the interim injunction application be filed within one week with advance copies to the opposite side.

The matter was thereafter directed to be listed in October, with the Court asking counsel to come prepared with instructions regarding a possible amicable resolution.