'Not Journalism': Delhi High Court Orders Newslaundry to Remove “Abusive” Content Against TV Today In Defamation Suit

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that freedom of speech, though fundamental, does not extend to abusive or derogatory expressions, directing digital media platform Newslaundry to remove certain objectionable content targeting TV Today Network and its channels, Aaj Tak and India Today.

A division bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed the interim order, observing that remarks such as “shit reporters,” “shit show,” and similar expressions crossed the boundary between legitimate criticism and defamation. Court held that such language does not contribute to meaningful public discourse but instead reflects an intention to harm reputation.

“…in our view, a prima facie is made out in the Plaintiff’s favour, only with respect to the defamatory and disparaging statements or remarks made by the Defendants, such as 'shit playing', 'shit reporters', 'shit show', 'high on weed or opium', and 'Your punctuation is as bad as your journalism'. Given the serious nature of these statements and their potential to cause lasting harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation, we find that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Plaintiff. Irreparable harm is likely to result if these statements are not taken down,” court held.

Directing immediate compliance, the bench ordered Newslaundry to remove specific statements from the impugned videos and take down such content from all its platforms, including social media and websites, until the final adjudication of the suit.

In its detailed reasoning, court emphasised that while critique, satire, and journalistic review are protected under the right to free speech, they must be grounded in analysis or commentary. Expressions that merely ridicule or demean individuals or institutions cannot claim constitutional protection.

The bench found that the language used in the impugned content was prima facie defamatory and disparaging, as it portrayed TV Today’s journalists and editorial output in a derogatory manner without any substantive basis. It noted that calling journalistic work “shit” or making personal attacks does not qualify as fair criticism or socially beneficial speech.

“The malicious intent of the Defendants is evident from their repeated targeting of the Plaintiff and their journalists and making disparaging comments about them. The Defendants not only criticized the Plaintiff’s work, but also commented negatively on the death of one of the Plaintiff’s anchors. Such conduct demonstrates a clear intent to harm the Plaintiff’s reputation and falls far beyond the realm of legitimate criticism. The statements made were not backed by any independent standards or justifications. Terms such as 'shit standards' and 'shit reporters' clearly go beyond the realm of criticism or review and are defamatory and disparaging and therefore, intended to demean the Plaintiff’s reputation”, court observed.

Rejecting Newslaundry’s contention that the two platforms operate in different domains, court held that both entities are part of the same media ecosystem. It observed that in today’s digital environment, audiences overlap significantly, and distinctions based on business models—such as advertisement-driven versus subscription-based—do not eliminate competition for viewership and influence.

Court further held that the impugned statements had the potential to adversely affect TV Today’s commercial reputation and public standing. It also took note of what it described as a pattern of repeated targeting, including remarks that extended beyond professional critique into personal attacks—even referencing comments made about a deceased anchor.

“….we partly allow the appeal to the limited extent that the statements or remarks identified by the learned Single Judge as constituting commercial disparagement should be removed. The statements are ex-facie disparaging, and their continued availability online would harm the Plaintiff’s reputation”, court observed.

Addressing the defence of satire and fair comment, bench clarified that merely invoking such grounds is insufficient to avoid interim relief. It observed that if such defences were accepted at face value, any party could evade judicial scrutiny by simply labelling content as satire or fair criticism.

Court also disagreed with the earlier decision of the Single Judge, who had declined to grant interim relief despite recognising a prima facie case. The division bench held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of TV Today, as continued circulation of the content could cause reputational harm that may not be adequately compensated through damages.

On the issue of irreparable injury, court underscored that harm to reputation cannot always be quantified monetarily, and therefore warrants protective intervention at an interim stage.

The dispute originates from a 2021 suit filed by TV Today Network, alleging defamation and copyright infringement by Newslaundry. While issues relating to copyright and fair dealing were left open for detailed examination during trial, court made it clear that abusive and derogatory speech cannot be shielded under the guise of free expression.

Reiterating the constitutional balance, the high court concluded that while free speech remains a cornerstone of democracy, it does not permit reckless or insulting attacks that undermine the dignity and reputation of others.

“The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. Both parties operate in the same media industry, with the Defendants having substantial user base. Any refusal of protection at this stage would cause greater prejudice to the Plaintiff, while granting the relief sought would not cause comparable hardship to the Defendants”, court observed.

Case Title: TV Today Network Limited v. News Laundry Media Private Limited & Ors.

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Date of Judgement: 20.03.2026