The Delhi High Court has directed News Laundry Media Private Limited to immediately remove specific remarks and statements from its digital platforms that were found to be prima facie defamatory and disparaging against TV Today Network Limited. A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla partly allowed the appeal filed by TV Today, setting aside a Single Judge’s refusal to grant interim protection regarding certain “offensive” content.
While the Court declined to grant an blanket injunction against the use of copyrighted news clips at this interlocutory stage—citing the need for a full trial to determine “fair dealing”—it held that terms such as “shit reporters,” “shit show,” and “high on weed or opium” transcend the boundaries of legitimate satire or critique.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from several programs aired by Newslaundry on its social media and digital platforms, which featured excerpts from TV Today’s channels, including “Aaj Tak” and “India Today Television.” TV Today filed a composite suit alleging copyright infringement, commercial disparagement, and defamation, claiming that Newslaundry had tarnished its reputation and infringed its original “cinematograph films” and “sound recordings.”
In July 2022, a learned Single Judge dismissed TV Today’s application for an interim injunction. Although the Single Judge observed that a prima facie case of defamation was made out, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favored the defendants and that any injury could be compensated by damages. Both parties challenged this order through cross-appeals.
Rival Submissions
TV Today Network (Appellant): Represented by Counsel Hrishikesh Baruah, the appellant argued that Newslaundry is a “rival trader” using copyrighted material for commercial benefit. It was contended that the defense of “transformation” is not recognized under Indian law and that the defendants failed to comply with Section 52A of the Copyright Act. TV Today specifically highlighted remarks like “Gold Standard. Shit Standard” and descriptions of its anchors as “high on weed or opium” as vicious attempts to denigrate its product.
Newslaundry Media (Respondent): Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, appearing for Newslaundry, argued that the programs fall squarely within “fair dealing” under Section 52 for the purpose of criticism and review. He emphasized that Newslaundry operates on a subscription-based model, unlike TV Today’s advertisement-driven model, and thus they are not market competitors. The defense of “truth” and “satire” were raised as absolute bars to an interim injunction.
Court’s Analysis
1. Jurisdiction over Composite Suits The Bench rejected Newslaundry’s objection that the Commercial Court could not hear non-commercial claims like defamation. Interpreting Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Court held that once an intellectual property claim is involved, other reliefs “arising out of” the same can be tried together to avoid clogging the legal system.
2. Media Houses as Competitors The Court disagreed with the contention that differing revenue models prevented the parties from being competitors.
“The revenue model does not alter the fact that both parties produce similar content and can influence the same audience… it is safe to conclude that the Plaintiff and Defendants are indeed competitors in the media space.”
3. Copyright and Fair Dealing On the issue of copyright infringement, the Bench maintained a cautious approach. Citing Wander Ltd v. Antox India (P) Ltd, the Court noted that “fair dealing” is a fact-intensive inquiry. Whether the use of excerpts was “absolutely necessary” or a “blatant act of copying” can only be determined after evidence is led during the trial.
4. Disparagement vs. Legitimate Criticism The Court found that Newslaundry’s self-awarded title of “highest standard of journalism” did not justify shaming others.
“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.”
The Bench specifically identified that terms like “shit standards” and “shit reporters” go beyond the realm of critique. It held that the learned Single Judge erred by equating “quantified damages” in the plaint with an “absence of irreparable injury.”
The Decision
The Division Bench partly allowed the appeal, directing Newslaundry to immediately remove the following remarks from their social media platforms, handles, and websites:
- “shit reporters”
- “shit show”
- “high on weed or opium”
- “Your punctuation is as bad as your journalism”
The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the interlocutory stage and do not bind the Trial Court’s final adjudication on merits. No order was made as to costs.
Case Details
- Case Title: TV Today Network Limited v. News Laundry Media Private Limited and Ors.
- Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 268/2022 and FAO(OS) (COMM) 303/2022
- Date: March 20, 2026
- Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla
