Delhi HC Flags Disturbing Trend of Media Reporting Innocuous Court Remarks to Create Sensation
Justice Bansal said media reports shape public perception and even influence legal professionals, making accuracy and fairness an absolute responsibility
Delhi High Court Cautions Media Against Sensationalising Courtroom Remarks
The Delhi High Court has flagged a disturbing trend of media reporting even the most innocuous remarks made by the Court during hearings, which may or may not be connected with the proceedings, merely to create sensation.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that such reporting creates curiosity among the public, who read these remarks with heightened interest without realising that they are not part of the judicial record, do not pertain to the merits of the case, and therefore do not warrant prominence or even reporting.
Justice Bansal further noted that media reports have a widespread impact on the general public as well as legal professionals, and hence the media has an absolute responsibility to maintain accuracy and fairness.
“It cannot be overstated that media reports have a widespread impact on the general public, which may include some legal professionals. The majority of the public may not be aware of legal nuances and depend solely on media reports to know about events happening in the country and the proceedings taking place in the Court,” the Court said.
These observations were made while hearing an application filed in the money laundering case against AgustaWestland scam accused Shravan Gupta, which is being probed by the Enforcement Directorate. Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, appearing for the accused, moved the application seeking expungement of a remark allegedly made by the Court, as reported by various media houses.
It was submitted that false, malicious, and defamatory news articles were published on 16 and 17 July 2025, targeting the professional reputation and dignity of Mr Vikas Pahwa.
The matter was heard on 16 July 2025 at around 11:45 a.m. After hearing the parties, the case was reserved for judgment, and connected matters were adjourned.
However, media houses, while reporting the proceedings of that day, falsely projected that adverse observations were made against the Senior Counsel, stating that his conduct of seeking instructions was “an act unbecoming of a Senior Advocate.” It was submitted on the petitioners' behalf that no such statement was ever made by the Court and that the judicial order dated 16 July 2025 contains no such remark.
Further, it was pointed out that six articles appeared on 17 July 2025 in CNN News 18, The Tribune Group, The Times Group, Rabhyaa Rabhav Corp Pvt Ltd (Law Trend), Indian Express Ltd, and CSR Journal, carrying the false narrative.
The petitioner claimed that such reporting has caused serious harm to the reputation of the Senior Advocate and therefore requires clarification.
After examining the issue, the Court observed that this is a case where a general remark expressing concern over repeated adjournments by counsel was made.
“To observe and falsely attribute that the remark was specifically directed toward Mr Pahwa, Senior Advocate, is not only incorrect but is essentially designed to create a sensational news story of interest to the public at large, with scant regard to the harm it may cause to an individual who is diligently discharging his duty of representing the litigant,” the Court said.
The Court further emphasised, “This is clearly not the mandate for the media, which owes the responsibility of not only making correct information available to the public but also ensure that unnecessary sensationalization is not created by taking innocuous remarks out of context and reporting them as the main event. With their expertise in journalism and reporting, no guidance from any Court is required as to what is germane to the court proceeding that may be reported and that which is of no consequence.”
With these observations, the Court held that no further clarification was required. It added that media houses of repute are expected to themselves consider whether such reporting should continue on their platforms.
The application was accordingly disposed of.
Case Title: Shravan Gupta vs Directorate of Enforcement
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Order Date: 04th November, 2025