The Delhi High Court has referred the defamation dispute between TV Today journalist Anjana Om Kashyap and popular educator Khan Sir (Faisal Khan), along with other educators, to mediation, observing that the parties should make efforts to resolve the matter amicably.
The dispute arose after comments made by Khan Sir and others allegedly describing Kashyap and the broadcaster as “bikau patrakar”, “chatukar”, and using other derogatory expressions. In response, Anjana Om Kashyap and TV Today filed a ₹2 crore defamation suit, seeking the removal of these allegedly defamatory remarks from various platforms.
During the hearing, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the alleged damage had already been done and that the parties should now focus on “salvaging” the situation through an amicable settlement. The Court noted that the parties appeared willing to explore the possibility of resolving their differences if a senior mediator was appointed.
Accordingly, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Rajshekar Rao as the mediator and directed the parties to commence mediation proceedings on the same day.
Counsel appearing for Kashyap and TV Today argued that the impugned posts were completely defamatory and further submitted that Khan Sir had disclosed the school attended by Kashyap’s children, resulting in alleged life threats. Taking note of the concern, the Court orally directed that references to the journalist’s children should be removed and advised the parties to avoid dragging family members into the controversy.
The Court also encouraged both sides to identify the specific words they found objectionable and attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation.
Apart from Khan Sir, educators Abhinay Sharma, Babita Tyagi, and Arvind Bhadauriya have also been named as defendants in the suit. Certain X (formerly Twitter) handles and 4PM News Network have also been impleaded as defendants in the proceedings.
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications.
Disclaimer: This report is based on court proceedings and publicly available sources. The matter is sub judice, and the allegations referred to remain subject to judicial determination.