Delhi High Court Issues Summons to Network18, Sushant Sinha in 'Pathshala' IP Dispute

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has issued summons in a high-profile trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Bennett Coleman and Company Limited (BCCL), the parent organisation of the news channel Times Now Navbharat.

The legal action is directed against Network18 Media and Investments Limited and television journalist Sushant Sinha.

At the heart of the judicial dispute is Network18's newly launched news analysis programme, titled "Desh Ki Pathshala." BCCL alleges that this new broadcast closely mirrors and unlawfully appropriates the established format of its own popular prime-time property, "News Ki Pathshala".

The conflict traces its origins to the recent professional transition of Sushant Sinha. The journalist was engaged by BCCL in 2021 and spent nearly five years serving as the prominent anchor for "News Ki Pathshala" on Times Now Navbharat.

According to the plaintiff, this specific show was conceptualised to emulate a classroom setting, with the anchor assuming the distinct persona of a teacher to decode the day's headlines.

In April 2026, Sinha departed from Times Now Navbharat and subsequently joined the rival broadcasting network, Network18. Following his exit, Times Now Navbharat revamped their original programme, appointing senior journalist Rubika Liyaquat to lead the show's refreshed format at the 8.50 pm prime-time slot.

Shortly after his transition, Sinha began anchoring "Desh Ki Pathshala" on his new network. BCCL claims that this newly launched programme is a direct, systematic usurpation of their intellectual property.

During the court proceedings presided over by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, Senior Advocate Hemant Singh appeared on behalf of BCCL. He argued that the infringement goes far beyond a mere linguistic variation of the title.

Singh contended that the competing show has entirely copied the presentation style, segment structure, visual identity, and overall expression of the original programme. He pointed out identical uses of classroom imagery, digital blackboards, chapter-based presentations, and concluding quizzes.

To illustrate the extent of the alleged imitation, the plaintiff’s counsel highlighted specific on-air phrases. He noted that in the original show, the anchor would say "aaj dekhiye" and "aaj kaun kaunsa chapter kholne wala hu," whereas in the new programme, the anchor says "aaj ka adhyay" and "aaj kaun kaunsi khabron ke adhyay kholne jaa raha hu".

The counsel emphasised the element of a breached professional trust, arguing that the dispute is not about a random stranger copying a broadcast format. He stated to the court that the anchor was someone the network had trusted for five years and had heavily invested in building up since he walked into their studio in 2021.

Singh further clarified the legal standing of their copyright claim by referencing the Supreme Court's decision in the R.G. Anand case. He submitted that while there is no copyright in a mere idea, the law strictly protects the form, manner, arrangement, and expression of a work, which the defendants have allegedly replicated.

The plaintiff also informed the court that a formal legal notice was issued to the defendants on June 15, but they proceeded to launch the contentious programme the very next day, eventually replying to the notice on June 23.

Defending the newly launched show, counsel for Network18 rejected the claims of intellectual property theft and labelled BCCL a "pirator". The defence argued that the word "Pathshala" is a term in common use and has been utilised in various television programmes long before Times Now Navbharat adopted it, specifically referencing earlier market and finance-related shows. Therefore, they asserted that the plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity over the word.

Representing Sushant Sinha, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi strongly opposed the allegations. He brought to the court's attention that BCCL had previously filed an earlier suit against the exact same parties seeking similar relief, during which no interim order was granted.

After hearing the preliminary arguments from both sides, Justice Bhambhani acknowledged the visual and conceptual elements, observing that the "look and feel is another aspect" when determining exclusive protection.

However, the court declined to pass an ad-interim injunction at this initial stage. The bench noted that the defendants had entered an appearance on caveat and firmly stated that they were entitled to file a formal reply before the court could consider granting any interim relief.

Consequently, the High Court issued summons to Network18 and Sushant Sinha, directing them to submit their written statements within a period of thirty days.

The court additionally granted the defendants a ten-day window to file their reply to BCCL’s application for an interim injunction, which is to be followed by a rejoinder from the plaintiff. The parties have been instructed to file their written synopses five days prior to the next hearing.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on the issue of interim relief on August 25, 2026, and will subsequently be placed before the Joint Registrar on October 13.

Case title: BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED V/S NETWORK18 MEDIA AND INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ANR.