New Delhi, January 7, 2026 – The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the immediate removal of social media posts linking Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Dushyant Gautam to the 2022 murder of Ankita Bhandari, a resort receptionist in Uttarakhand’s Pauri Garhwal district. The court’s decision also came with a broader injunction restraining multiple individuals and political parties from circulating similar content in the future.

A bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order, noting that the allegations leveled against Gautam were prima facie defamatory and could cause irreparable harm to his reputation if left unaddressed. The court specifically directed the defendants to remove the posts within 24 hours and instructed Meta, which operates the social media platforms Facebook and Instagram, to enforce compliance should the defendants fail to act. The next hearing in the matter was scheduled for May 4, 2026.

The case arose after Gautam, a senior BJP leader, filed a defamation suit against actor Urmila Sanawar, former BJP legislator Suresh Rathore, the Congress Party, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and other entities for allegedly circulating false claims linking him to Bhandari’s murder. Gautam contended that the posts deliberately insinuated his involvement in the case, portraying him as a sexual predator and falsely linking him to one of the most notorious crimes in recent memory.

Background of the 2022 Murder Case

Ankita Bhandari, then 19 years old, was employed as a receptionist at a resort in Pauri Garhwal. She was reportedly pressured to provide sexual favours to influential individuals connected to the resort. On the night of her death, she was allegedly targeted after refusing such advances. Her body was later recovered from a canal, leading to a high-profile investigation that drew significant national attention.

Local courts subsequently convicted Pulkit Arya, the son of a former BJP leader, along with two others, sentencing them to life imprisonment for their involvement in Bhandari’s murder. The case, given its gruesome nature and the involvement of political families, became the subject of intense media coverage and public discourse.

Defamation Allegations Against Gautam

In December 2025, Urmila Sanawar released a video clip in which Suresh Rathore was purportedly heard naming Dushyant Gautam and another senior political leader as the so-called “VIPs” for whom Bhandari had allegedly been forced to provide sexual favours. Sanawar, a public figure with significant reach on social media, asserted that these individuals were implicated in unethical and criminal conduct associated with the Bhandari murder.

Gautam, through his lawyers Gaurav Bhatia and Simran Brar, challenged these allegations in the Delhi High Court. The legal team argued that the audio and video content linking Gautam to the murder was fabricated, doctored, and deliberately disseminated to damage his reputation. They emphasized that Gautam’s name had never appeared in any investigation report, charge sheet, or judicial finding related to the case.

According to the submissions made in court, the videos circulated by Sanawar were not only widely shared on social media but were also embedded in content produced and disseminated by the official social media handles of the Congress and AAP. These videos had been downloaded, edited, and re-shared across multiple platforms, amplifying the alleged defamatory content and increasing the scope of harm to Gautam’s public image.

The court was informed that such widespread circulation of unverified and false content amounted to a deliberate attempt to malign Gautam. The videos falsely suggested that he was involved in exploiting and ultimately causing the death of Bhandari, which, if believed by the public, would constitute a severe violation of his fundamental right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution.

High Court’s Observations and Directions

Justice Pushkarna noted that the allegations were prima facie defamatory, meaning that they were sufficiently serious and damaging on their face, warranting immediate judicial intervention. The bench emphasized the potential for irreparable harm if the posts were not removed, considering the ease with which digital content spreads and the difficulty of controlling its impact once circulated.

The court’s injunction applied to all defendants, including Urmila Sanawar, Suresh Rathore, the Congress Party, the AAP, and Uttarakhand Congress chief Ganesh Godiyal, preventing them from publishing, posting, or sharing similar content that implicated Gautam in the murder. By issuing a 24-hour compliance directive, the court underscored the urgency of halting the spread of defamatory content on social media platforms, particularly in cases involving high-profile political figures.

Meta, as the operator of Facebook and Instagram, was specifically directed to enforce the take-down in accordance with the court’s order, ensuring that content violating the injunction could not continue to circulate even if the defendants failed to comply voluntarily.

Legal and Political Implications

The case highlights the growing intersection of social media, political rivalry, and the law in India. Gautam’s petition underscores concerns about the misuse of digital platforms to spread unverified, inflammatory, or false contenttargeting political figures. At the same time, it raises broader questions about the accountability of political parties, public figures, and digital intermediaries in controlling the spread of misinformation online.

Political analysts note that the case also reflects the sensitive dynamics of high-profile criminal cases involving political families. Given the intense scrutiny surrounding Bhandari’s murder, any attempt to implicate unrelated individuals carries serious reputational and legal consequences. Gautam’s legal recourse in this matter is viewed as a strategic move to protect his political career and personal standing while sending a warning against the misuse of social media for defamation.

The court’s direction is expected to set a precedent for similar cases in the future, where social media posts falsely linking public figures to criminal acts may be subject to immediate take-down orders to prevent irreversible harm. The decision also reinforces the responsibility of digital platforms like Facebook and Instagram to act promptly when notified of unlawful content, in line with India’s Information Technology rules and judicial directives.

Next Steps

The Delhi High Court has fixed May 4, 2026, as the next date of hearing to review compliance with the take-down order and to hear further arguments regarding damages and broader injunctive relief. Until then, the defendants are legally bound not to circulate any content linking Gautam to the 2022 murder case, and Meta is expected to monitor compliance closely.

Gautam’s lawyers have argued that continued circulation of such content would not only harm his personal and professional reputation but also impact public perception and political discourse. The case underscores the urgent need for responsible conduct by political leaders, media personalities, and digital platforms, particularly when dealing with unverified allegations related to high-profile criminal cases.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s order represents a decisive intervention in curbing the spread of defamatory content on social media, safeguarding an individual’s right to reputation while balancing freedom of expression. By directing the removal of posts and restraining multiple parties from further circulation, the court has emphasized the seriousness of using digital platforms to propagate false allegations, particularly in sensitive cases involving crimes and political figures. The case continues to attract attention from political circles, legal experts, and social media observers, as it highlights the challenges and responsibilities of managing information in the digital age.

---