The Delhi High Court on Thursday (22 January 2024) sharply criticised the language used by Newslaundry journalist Manisha Pande in a video targeting the TV Today Network, which owns the news channels Aaj Tak and India Today.
According to a report by Bar & Bench, a Division Bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla described Pande’s use of the word “shit” while referring to a video about Good News Today, a TV Today channel, as “gross” and demeaning. The Bench made it clear that such language crossed acceptable limits of journalistic conduct.
The Court cautioned that it could make observations or issue directions that may seriously impact Pande’s professional future.
“Are you continuing with anchor? She should be thrown out. She has no business being a reporter. She doesn’t know the basics. She doesn’t know the fundamentals of decency in reporting. We will make this statement in open court. We will comment on her personally. We won’t mind impleading her as a party. There has to be a limit to everything… We may pass an order which will place her entire career in disarray,” the Bench observed.
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, appearing on behalf of Newslaundry, acknowledged that he did not endorse certain expressions used in the videos. However, he argued that the lawsuit initiated by TV Today — alleging defamation, disparagement, and copyright violation — was less about language and more about discomfort with media scrutiny.
“I take their clip and comment on it. Yes, I should have used better language. But somebody wants to shut me down,” Rao submitted.
These remarks were made while the High Court was hearing cross-appeals arising from a single-judge order in a suit filed by TV Today accusing Newslaundry of copyright infringement, defamation, and disparagement.
TV Today had instituted the case in October 2021, claiming that Newslaundry published content that damaged its reputation through what it described as “false, malicious and derogatory” statements directed at its channels, journalists, and management.
Newslaundry, on the other hand, maintained that its work constituted satire and media criticism protected under free speech principles.
On July 29, 2022, the High Court declined to grant interim relief to TV Today. Both sides subsequently appealed the order — TV Today objected to the denial of interim relief, while Newslaundry argued that the court’s prima facie observations could prejudice it.
During the hearing, advocate Hrishikesh Baruah, representing TV Today, referred to multiple Newslaundry videos and contended that comments made by Pande and Newslaundry co-founder Abhinandan Sekhri were derogatory. He further argued that extensive use of TV Today’s video clips exceeded the boundaries of fair use and amounted to copyright infringement.
While the Bench expressed disapproval of Pande’s use of the word “shit,” it also clarified that TV Today could not label every unfavourable critique as disparagement.
The Court held that phrases used by Newslaundry — such as “method anchoring,” “thoda drama thoda gimmick (little drama, little gimmick),” “soap opera,” or “killing sports journalism Aaj Tak style” — constituted criticism rather than disparagement.
“Every word that they say is ot disparaging. This is commenting on what youa are showing. This is criticism. How is this disparaging? She is saying that you are doing it for cheap thrills, that’s not disparaging… Even if he says your programme is absolute nonsense, that’s not disparaging, that’s a comment,” the Bench remarked.
Advocate Bani Dikshit, also appearing for Newslaundry, pointed out that the platform had never claimed ownership of Aaj Tak or India Today footage. She added that expressions such as “nanga nach (nude dance)” must be evaluated in the context in which they were used.
In his concluding submissions, Senior Advocate Rao stated that Newslaundry was founded on the belief that the media had historically stood firm during the nation’s most challenging moments, but that a transformation had occurred over time.
“We [media] are conscience keepers of democracy,” he said.
The Bench clarified that it did not wish to comment on the current state of the media.
“We don’t want to express our views about what the media is doing. We are restricting ourselves,” Justice Hari Shankar stated.
The Court subsequently reserved its judgment in the appeals.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
