New Delhi

Holding that freedom of speech does not extend to abusive or derogatory attacks, the Delhi High Court has observed that remarks such as "shit standards", "shit reporters" and similar expressions used against TV Today Network cross the line from criticism into defamation and commercial disparagement.

The High Court noted that such language does not advance public discourse and instead reflects an intent to harm reputation, making it impermissible even at the interim stage.

The Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed the observations while directing digital media platform Newslaundry to remove certain videos and posts relating to TV Today Network and its channels, Aaj Tak and India Today.

The Court ordered that, the Respondents are directed to immediately remove the remarks or statements "shit reporters," "shit show," "high on weed or opium," and "Your punctuation is as bad as your journalism" from the impugned video and remove them from their respective social media platforms, handles, and websites until the final disposal of the underlying suit".

In a detailed order, the High Court emphasised that while critique, satire and review are protected forms of speech, they cannot degenerate into insults.

The Bench held that expressions used by Newslaundry in the impugned content were ex facie "defamatory and disparaging", as they portrayed TV Today's programmes and journalists in a derogatory manner without any legitimate basis.

The High Court observed that fair criticism must be rooted in reason, analysis or commentary, and not in language intended to ridicule or demean. It noted that calling journalistic output "shit" or making personal attacks does not qualify as socially beneficial speech or protected commentary.

Rejecting Newslaundry's argument that the parties operate in different spheres, the HC held that both entities are part of the same media ecosystem.

It noted that in the digital age, content consumption overlaps significantly, and audiences are not restricted by platform or revenue model. Even if one platform is advertisement-driven and the other subscription-based, both compete for attention and influence over the same viewers.

The Bench therefore concluded that the statements made by Newslaundry had the potential to impact TV Today's commercial reputation and public standing.

The High Court upheld that a prima facie case of defamation and commercial disparagement was made out. It pointed out that Newslaundry had repeatedly targeted TV Today, its journalists, and its editorial output with derogatory remarks.

Particularly, the HC took note of comments that went beyond critique and entered the realm of personal attacks, including statements made in relation to a deceased anchor. Such conduct, the Bench observed, indicated a pattern of intent to damage reputation rather than engage in fair review.

The HC made it clear that such statements cannot be justified under the defences of satire, fair comment, or public interest journalism.

Addressing the defence taken by Newslaundry, the Court held that merely pleading fair dealing, satire, or truth cannot automatically shield a party from interim action.

It was observed that if such defences were accepted at face value at the interim stage, any party could evade an injunction simply by raising them. The Court stressed that where content is prima facie defamatory or disparaging, courts are justified in granting protective relief pending trial.

At the same time, the Bench clarified that issues like copyright infringement and fair dealing would ultimately require detailed examination at trial, as they involve fact-intensive analysis.

The Division Bench disagreed with the earlier decision of the Single Judge, which had refused interim relief despite finding a prima facie case.

It held that the balance of convenience clearly favoured TV Today, as continued circulation of defamatory content could cause reputational harm, whereas removal of such content would not cause disproportionate prejudice to Newslaundry.

On the issue of irreparable harm, the Court rejected the view that quantification of damages negates injury, observing that reputational damage cannot always be adequately compensated in monetary terms.

In light of its findings, the Court directed Newslaundry to take down specific videos and posts containing objectionable and disparaging remarks against TV Today Network and its channels.

The dispute traces back to a 2021 suit filed by TV Today Network alleging that Newslaundry had published defamatory content and used excerpts from its broadcasts in violation of copyright.

READ MORE: Kolkata's Dr Honey Qureshi is an angel for childless couples

While the Single Judge had earlier declined interim relief, both parties approached the Division Bench--TV Today challenging the refusal of the injunction and Newslaundry questioning the findings against it.

Reiterating the constitutional balance, the High Court held that while free speech is a cornerstone of democracy, it does not permit reckless or abusive attacks on reputation.