No Legitimate Defence For Calling Their Work "Shit" Or Targeting Journalists: Delhi High Court Directs Newslaundry To Remove Disparaging Remarks Against TV Today Network From Social Media

The Court made these observations while partly allowing appeals in the dispute between TV Today Network Ltd. and Newslaundry (social media and digital platforms name), holding that such language goes beyond permissible journalistic critique and instead constitutes an attack on the plaintiff’s reputation warranting judicial scrutiny at trial.

Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, “Thus, we find no convincing justification for the statements made by the Defendants. There is no legitimate defence for calling the Plaintiff’s work “shit” or making derogatory remarks about its journalists. Such statements, in our view, cannot be protected under the guise of fair dealing or legitimate criticism. Thus, Defendants’ conduct appears to be an unprovoked attack on the Plaintiff’s reputation rather than a critique aimed at improving public discourse”.

“The Defendants have argued that their main objective was to provide informative and socially beneficial content, and that there was no malicious intent behind their statements. However, we cannot accept this defence. Statements such as “shit playing”, “shit reporters”, “shit show”, “high on weed or opium”, and “your punctuation is as bad as your journalism" clearly do not qualify as socially beneficial content. These remarks, rather than contributing to public discourse, serve to disparage and insult the Plaintiff and its journalists”, the Bench categorically noted.

Advocate Hrishikesh Baruah appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao appeared for the respondent.

The judgment came in cross-appeals arising from an order of the Single Judge which had, despite finding a prima facie case of defamation and disparagement, declined to grant interim injunction in favour of TV Today Network Ltd.

The Appellant had approached the Court alleging that Newslaundry published videos and programmes containing defamatory, disparaging and abusive remarks, and also used clips from its broadcasts, amounting to copyright infringement. It sought takedown of such content and injunctive relief.

The Single Judge had earlier held that although certain remarks were prima facie defamatory, balance of convenience lay in favour of the defendants, and that any injury could be compensated through damages. This finding was challenged by both sides.

On appeal, the Division Bench upheld the finding that a prima facie case of defamation and commercial disparagement was made out, observing that statements targeting the quality of journalism and individual journalists in crude and abusive terms cross the permissible limits of criticism.

“The Defendants have self-awarded the title of the ‘highest standard of journalism’ and claim to be protectors of public interest. This self-entitlement cannot serve as a blanket justification for disparaging remarks. The tone of the statements made by the Defendants appears to be one of intolerance rather than constructive criticism. In the name of being “correct” and “independent”, the Defendants have, at times, replaced substantive debate with shaming, which does not benefit public discourse or social dialogue”, the Bench remarked.

The Bench on the intention of the defendants observed, “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…”.

On the issue of copyright, the Court declined to interfere at the interim stage, noting that the defence of fair dealing, particularly in the context of criticism, review, and reporting, requires a fact-intensive examination, including the nature, extent, and purpose of use. These issues, the Court held, must be determined at trial.

However, upon examining whether the refusal by the Single Judge Bench, refusing to grant interim injunction was justified in light of the settled principles governing interim relief, the Division Bench observed, “In our view, the learned Single Judge did not correctly apply the principle of balance of convenience. It is well settled that when applying the principle of balance of convenience, the Court must weigh one party’s need against the other and then determine which side’s convenience prevails. However, in the present case, instead of weighing the convenience, the learned Single Judge seemed to base its decision on the merits of the case”.

“The learned Single Judge’s reasoning becomes even more complex when it comes to commercial disparagement. The primary purpose of commercial disparagement is to protect goodwill and commercial reputation from ongoing market-facing denigration. In our opinion, while weighing the Plaintiff’s need against the Defendants’, the balance of convenience would certainly tilt in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s reputation and commercial standing would be at risk, while the Defendants would not face any disproportionate harm by taking down the offending content or remarks, especially at the interim stage”, the Bench further observed.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the findings on balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and held that limited interim relief was warranted, particularly in respect of statements that were ex facie abusive and disparaging.

Cause Title: TV Today Network Limited v. News Laundry Media Private Limited And Ors [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2339-DB]

Appearances:

Appellant: Hrishikesh Baruah, Kumar Kshitij, Pragya Agarwal, Yashaswy Ghosh and Nishtha Sachan, Advocates.

Respondents: Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv., Bani Dikshit and Uddhav Khanna, Mamta Rani Jha, Shruttima Ehersa, Rohan Ahuja and Amishi Sodani, Deepak Gogia, Aadhar Nautiyal and Shivangi Kohli, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment