Delhi HC Refers Anjana Om Kashyap-Khan Sir Defamation Suit to Mediation, Flags Disclosure of Children’s School

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela defers interim injunction and sends the parties to a senior mediator after counsel for Khan Sir agrees to immediately remove all public disclosures of the journalist’s minor children’s school details, which had triggered active life threats, while the Court admonishes both sides: “You may be critical, but criticism cannot be at that level.”

The Delhi High Court on July 2, 2026 deferred granting an immediate interim injunction in the defamation suit filed by journalist Anjana Om Kashyap and TV Today Network Ltd. against popular online educator Faisal Khan, widely known as Khan Sir, and others, opting instead to refer both parties to a senior mediator to explore an amicable settlement.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, hearing the matter, expressed the view that the dispute was capable of being resolved without immediate judicial intervention, while firmly admonishing the defendants’ side for the manner in which the online backlash had escalated, particularly the disclosure of the school attended by Kashyap’s minor children, which the plaintiffs’ counsel informed the Court had resulted in active life threats against her.

Background

TV Today Network Ltd. and its Managing Editor Anjana Om Kashyap filed the suit against Khan Sir and others over allegedly defamatory and derogatory social media posts. The digital backlash appeared to have been triggered by the anchor’s original broadcast, in which she was alleged to have made disparaging remarks about Khan Sir’s community and teaching methods. The defendants’ counsel, representing Khan Sir, submitted before the Court that the broadcast had made fun of the entire community, describing them as “cheaters and frauds” and suggesting the educators were not genuinely teaching students.

The plaintiffs pressed for an injunction to take down the allegedly defamatory social media content. Advocate Hrishikesh Barwah, appearing for the plaintiffs, brought to the Court’s attention the most serious dimension of the matter: the co-defendants had publicly disclosed the name of the school attended by Kashyap’s minor children, which had resulted in active life threats being received. He placed documentary evidence of the threats before the Court.

“Defendant No. 1 has disclosed the school in which my children are studying, and I am getting life threats because of this. They are educationists; they are not supposed to have discussed the school or the curriculum.” - Advocate Hrishikesh Barwah, for Anjana Om Kashyap

The Court’s Observations

Justice Gedela, while acknowledging that the online reaction appeared to be a response to the anchor’s original broadcast and declining to adjudicate on the merits of that broadcast at this stage, firmly admonished the defendants’ side for the manner in which the response had been framed and expressed.

“We don’t know what you have said, but according to what they have written, maybe it’s not the right thing to have said. You may be critical of somebody, but criticism cannot be at that level. That’s our opinion.” - Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

The Court suggested that those portions of the defendants’ posts that contained unparliamentary language could be disjuncted or omitted, and that the parties should sit together to expunge the specific aggrieved words from the digital platforms. Justice Gedela also addressed the broader conduct expected of the defendants, noting their standing as educators.

“This is not an issue which should be coming to court. You should be resolving it. You may have reacted rightly or wrongly, but whatever reaction you choose, you should understand that you are academicians. You are teaching youngsters. When you are teaching youngsters, this should not become a part of you.” - Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

When the plaintiffs’ counsel pressed on the disclosure of the children’s school, the Court responded with equanimity to the defendants’ claim that political commentary is universal, remarking that everyone, including those with no expertise, discusses politics, but made clear that the line had been crossed by dragging the journalist’s minor children into the dispute.

Immediate Takedown and Referral to Mediation

In response to the Court’s observations, counsel appearing for Khan Sir agreed to immediately remove from all public platforms any disclosures relating to Kashyap’s children, including the school details. Recognising the potential for a mutual resolution, the Court referred the dispute to a senior mediator, with mediation proceedings scheduled to commence that afternoon at 4:30 PM.

The Court also issued notice on an application filed by the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint. The matter has been scheduled for the next hearing on July 9, 2026, to await the outcome of the mediation proceedings.

“It appears that parties can and may resolve disputes amicably. The parties are willing to explore the terms of settlement in case a senior mediator is appointed. They are ready to commence the mediation proceedings today itself.” - Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Case Details

• Case Title: Anjana Om Kashyap & Anr. v. Faisal Khan & Ors.
• Case Number: CS(OS) 538/2026
• Court: Delhi High Court
• Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
• Date of Hearing: July 2, 2026
• For Plaintiffs: Advocate Hrishikesh Barwah