Introduction
This ruling balances the rights of media houses against free speech and fair criticism, the High Court of Delhi has partly allowed an appeal by TV Today Network Limited (the company behind Aaj Tak and India Today) against News Laundry Media Private Limited. The court ordered the removal of certain highly derogatory remarks from News Laundry’s videos while refusing a blanket ban on their content. This decision highlights how courts handle disputes between rival media platforms where one accuses the other of defamation, commercial disparagement, and copyright infringement through online reviews and critiques. The judgment is easy to understand: it protects reputation from clear insults but does not silence legitimate media criticism.
Factual Background
TV Today Network Limited runs popular television channels such as Aaj Tak and India Today. It claimed that News Laundry, an independent digital media company known for satirical reviews of news channels, had repeatedly used clips from its broadcasts without proper permission and made extremely insulting comments.
Alleged Derogatory Remarks
- Calling the channel’s work “shit standards”
- Describing reporters as “shit reporters”
- Stating anchors were “high on weed or opium”
- Referring to punctuation as “as bad as your journalism”
News Laundry argued that its videos were fair reviews meant to critique media bias and hold powerful channels accountable. It said it gave credit to the original clips, used only short excerpts, and transformed them with its own commentary, satire, and public-interest journalism. TV Today filed a commercial suit seeking to stop these videos and remove the content, claiming huge damage to its reputation and copyright.
Procedural Background
TV Today moved an application for an immediate temporary injunction to stop News Laundry from using its clips and to remove the offending videos. The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court found that some statements were clearly defamatory and disparaging on the face of it and that a prima facie case existed.
- The Single Judge refused the injunction.
- Held that the balance of convenience favoured News Laundry.
- Observed that TV Today would not suffer irreparable injury.
- Stated that any loss could be compensated by money damages later.
Both sides appealed. TV Today challenged the refusal of the injunction, while News Laundry challenged the finding that a prima facie case of defamation existed. The Division Bench heard both cross-appeals together.
Reasoning
Jurisdiction
The Division Bench first confirmed that the Commercial Court had jurisdiction to hear the entire suit because the copyright claim brought the matter within the Commercial Courts Act, and the connected claims of defamation and disparagement could also be tried there.
Copyright
On copyright, the court agreed with the Single Judge that whether News Laundry’s use of clips qualified as “fair dealing” for criticism and review was a complex factual question that could only be decided after a full trial. It refused any interim order stopping the use of clips.
Defamation and Commercial Disparagement
On defamation and commercial disparagement, the court agreed that statements like “shit reporters,” “shit show,” “high on weed or opium,” and “Your punctuation is as bad as your journalism” were clearly insulting and went beyond fair criticism.
- Rejected the argument that the parties were not competitors.
- Recognized both platforms target the same audience in the digital era.
- Held that the remarks amounted to commercial disparagement.
Triple Test for Injunction
The court then examined the “triple test” for injunctions – prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
| Test | Court’s Observation |
|---|---|
| Prima Facie Case | Correctly established by the Single Judge |
| Balance of Convenience | Favoured protecting reputation over allowing harmful remarks |
| Irreparable Injury | Reputational harm cannot always be compensated by money |
While the Single Judge had correctly found a prima facie case, the Division Bench held that the Single Judge had wrongly applied the other two tests. It explained that the mere fact that a defence of justification or fair dealing is pleaded cannot automatically tilt the balance against granting relief. The plaintiff’s reputation is at risk right now, while removing a few specific remarks would cause no real hardship to News Laundry. The court also clarified that the ability to claim damages later does not mean the injury is not “irreparable” – some harm to reputation cannot be fully fixed by money. Therefore, limited interim relief was necessary to protect TV Today until the trial.
Judgements With Complete Citation And Their Context Discussed
The court relied on several important precedents to explain its reasoning.
- Wander Ltd v Antox India (P) Ltd (1990 Supp SCC 727): It reminded itself that an appellate court should interfere with an interim order only if the Single Judge acted arbitrarily or ignored settled law – a principle that guided how strictly it reviewed the earlier order.
Fair Dealing In Copyright
- Super Cassettes Industries Limited v Mr Chintamani Rao & Ors (2012 (49) PTC 1 (Del)): Explaining that only the minimum portion necessary for genuine criticism is allowed and one cannot “piggyback” on another’s work to gain popularity.
Disparagement
- Dabur India Limited v Patanjali Ayurved Limited and Anr (2025 DHC 5232): Defines disparagement as any false or misleading statement that harms a rival’s product or reputation to gain commercial advantage.
- Zydus Wellness Products Ltd v Mr Prashant Desai (2024 DHC 7432)
- Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd v Gillette India Ltd (2016 SCC OnLine Del 4737): Laid down clear tests:
- The statement must specifically target the rival
- Must be taken seriously
- Must go beyond mere puffery or self-praise
Defamation And Interim Injunctions
- Bonnard v Perryman (1891) 2 Ch 269: The court borrowed the famous “Bonnard standard” from English law as applied in Indian cases, stressing that courts must be extremely cautious before stopping publication because free speech is precious.
Irreparable Injury
- Dalpat Kumar v Prahlad Singh (1992 1 SCC 719): Shows that injury which cannot be fully compensated by damages justifies immediate protection.
The Final Decision Of Court
The Division Bench partly allowed TV Today’s appeal and dismissed News Laundry’s cross-appeal.
- It upheld the Single Judge’s finding of a prima facie case
- Set aside the refusal of injunction for the disparaging parts
It directed News Laundry to immediately remove the specific remarks:
| Disparaging Remarks Ordered To Be Removed |
|---|
| “shit reporters” |
| “shit show” |
| “high on weed or opium” |
| “Your punctuation is as bad as your journalism” |
From the videos and all its social media platforms and websites until the suit is finally decided.
- No injunction was granted on the copyright claims or other general content
- The rest of the suit will continue to trial
- There was no order as to costs
Point Of Law Settled In The Case
- In media disparagement cases, once a court finds certain statements are clearly defamatory on the face of it, the mere pleading of a defence of justification or fair dealing cannot automatically deny interim relief.
- The balance of convenience and irreparable injury must be weighed independently.
- Protection of reputation can outweigh free-speech concerns when the remarks are malicious and not genuine criticism.
- It clarifies that differing business models (advertisement vs subscription) do not prevent two media houses from being treated as competitors in the digital age.
- It reinforces that commercial courts can hear composite suits involving copyright along with defamation when the claims arise from the same facts.
Case Details
| Case Title | TV Today Network Limited Vs News Laundry Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors |
|---|---|
| Date Of Order | 20.03.2026 |
| Case Number | FAO(OS) (COMM) 268/2022 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:2339-DB |
| Name Of Court | High Court Of Delhi |
| Name Of Hon’ble Judge | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla with Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar |
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
