Calling Journalists ‘Shit Reporters’ and ‘High on Weed’ Goes Beyond Fair Criticism: Delhi High Court Orders News Laundry to Remove Disparaging Remarks Against AajTak [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by TV Today Network Limited, operator of AajTak and India Today Television, against digital media outlet News Laundry, holding that statements such as “shit reporters”, “shit show”, “high on weed or opium”, and “your punctuation is as bad as your journalism” constitute commercial disparagement going beyond the realm of legitimate criticism, and directed their immediate removal from all social media platforms, handles, and websites of the defendants until final disposal of the underlying suit.

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, pronouncing the judgment on March 20, 2026, in FAO(OS) (COMM) 268/2022 and FAO(OS) (COMM) 303/2022, set aside the learned Single Judge’s findings on balance of convenience and irreparable injury to the extent they refused interim relief, while affirming the finding that a prima facie case of commercial disparagement had been made out.

The dispute arose from a suit filed by TV Today Network Limited in CS (COMM) No. 551 of 2021 against News Laundry Media Private Limited and others, alleging that the defendants, through various programmes aired on their social media and digital platforms, had tarnished the reputation of the plaintiff, defamed it, and infringed its copyright by reproducing portions of original works and telecasts from the plaintiff’s news channels. The learned Single Judge had found that a prima facie case of defamation and disparagement was made out, but dismissed the application for interim injunction, holding that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the defendants and that no irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff in the absence of an interim injunction. Both parties filed cross-appeals against this order.

On the jurisdictional objection raised by the defendants that the suit, combining copyright infringement with defamation and disparagement, was not maintainable as a composite suit before the Commercial Court, the Division Bench rejected the submission. The Court held that Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 defines a commercial dispute to include intellectual property rights such as copyrights, and that the Explanation to the provision does not restrict the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts by proscribing composite suits involving both commercial and non-commercial claims. The Court held that the reliance placed by the defendants on Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP, (2020) 15 SCC 585 was misplaced, as that decision did not hold that composite suits combining commercial and non-commercial claims are prohibited.

On copyright infringement, the Court examined the doctrine of fair dealing under Sections 52 and 39 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the law laid down in ESPN Star Sports v. Global Broadcast News Ltd., (2008) 38 PTC 477 (Del), Super Cassettes Industries Limited v. Mr. Chintamani Rao and Others, 2012 (49) PTC 1 (Del), and Wiley Eastern Ltd. and Others v. Indian Institute of Management, 61 (1996) DLT 281 (DB). The Court noted that only that part of a copyrighted work may be used for criticism or review which is absolutely necessary, and that the purpose should not be to ride piggyback on the work of another. The Court held that fair dealing must be assessed on a fact-specific basis, having regard to the extent and purpose of the use.

On the issue of commercial disparagement, the Court disagreed with the defendants’ contention that the two parties were not direct competitors, holding that despite their differing business models, both operated in the electronic media, produced similar news content, were available on overlapping platforms, and targeted a coinciding consumer base. The Court held that in today’s digital media landscape, access to content is not limited by platform restrictions and that the argument that the consumer bases differed due to differing revenue models lacked credibility.

The Court held that the malicious intent of the defendants was evident from their repeated targeting of the plaintiff and its journalists, and from their making disparaging comments on the death of one of the plaintiff’s anchors. The Court held that terms such as “shit standards” and “shit reporters” clearly go beyond the realm of criticism or review and are defamatory and disparaging. The Court further held that the defendants’ self-awarded title of the “highest standard of journalism” could not serve as a blanket justification for disparaging remarks, and that their tone appeared to be one of intolerance rather than constructive criticism.

On the balance of convenience, the Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had not correctly applied the principle, having based the decision on the merits of the case rather than on weighing the respective inconvenience caused to the parties. The Court held that the mere fact that the defendants had pleaded fair dealing or justification should not be a reason to deny interim relief, as any defendant could evade injunctive relief simply by raising such a defence. The Court referred to Dalpat Kumar and Another v. Prahlad Singh and Others, (1992) 1 SCC 719, and held that the learned Single Judge had mistakenly treated the presence of quantified damages as equivalent to the absence of irreparable injury, which was a misapplication of the principles governing interim injunctions.

On defamation, the Court applied the Bonnard standard as adopted by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, and the principles laid down in R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632, and Indibility Creative (P) Ltd. v. Govt. of W.B., (2020) 12 SCC 436, holding that courts must exercise close scrutiny before restraining speech, particularly where the matter involves public interest. The Court also applied the guidelines in Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd., 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Del) and Reckitt Benckiser on the law of commercial disparagement.

The Court partly allowed the plaintiff’s appeal to the limited extent that the statements identified as constituting commercial disparagement be removed, and directed the defendants to immediately remove the remarks “shit reporters”, “shit show”, “high on weed or opium”, and “your punctuation is as bad as your journalism” from the impugned videos and from all their social media platforms, handles, and websites until final disposal of the underlying suit. The Court clarified that the observations made at the interlocutory stage shall not prejudice or bind the Trial Court in its adjudication on merits after full appreciation of evidence.

Case Details:

FAO(OS) (COMM) 268/2022 – TV Today Network Limited v. News Laundry Media Private Limited and Others
FAO(OS) (COMM) 303/2022 – News Laundry Media Pvt. Ltd. v. TV Today Network Ltd. and Others

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

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

Date of Judgment: March 20, 2026

Date of Reservation: January 22, 2026

Counsel for TV Today Network Limited (Appellant in FAO(OS) (COMM) 268/2022):
Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah with Mr. Kumar Kshitij, Ms. Pragya Agarwal, Mr. Yashaswy Ghosh, and Ms. Nishtha Sachan

Senior Advocate for News Laundry Media (Appellant in FAO(OS) (COMM) 303/2022):
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao with Ms. Bani Dikshit and Mr. Uddhav Khanna for Respondents 1 to 9

Counsel for Respondent No. 10:
Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, and Ms. Amishi Sodani

Counsel for Respondent No. 12:
Mr. Deepak Gogia, Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal, and Ms. Shivangi Kohli

[Read Judgment]