Delhi High Court Orders Newslaundry To Remove “Shit Reporters”, “Shit Show” Remarks Against TV Today

The Delhi High Court on Friday partly allowed an appeal filed by TV Today Network Limited, directing News Laundry Media Private Limited to remove specific derogatory remarks from its digital platforms at the interim stage.

A division bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that while the defence of fair dealing in copyright law involves fact-intensive examination requiring trial, the use of expressions such as “shit reporters” and “shit show” was prima facie disparaging and defamatory.

“Thus, in our view, a prima facie is made out in the Plaintiff's favour, only with respect to the defamatory and disparaging statements or remarks made by the Defendants, such as 'shit playing', 'shit reporters', 'shit show', 'high on weed or opium', and 'Your punctuation is as bad as your journalism'. Given the serious nature of these statements and their potential to cause lasting harm to the Plaintiff's reputation, we find that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Plaintiff. Irreparable harm is likely to result if these statements are not taken down,” the court ordered.

TV Today Network Limited and News Laundry Media Private Limited had filed cross-appeals against a Single Judge's order which had refused to grant an interim injunction despite holding that a prima facie case of defamation and disparagement was made out.

The dispute arose from Newslaundry's use of excerpts from TV Today's news broadcasts in its digital shows such as Newsance and Tippani, which the broadcaster alleged amounted to copyright infringement, defamation, and commercial disparagement.

TV Today contended that its commercial reputation had been harmed through unprovoked insults directed at its journalists, programmes, and editorial standards.

The broadcaster cited instances where its content was described as a “shit show” with “shit reporters”, an anchor was called a “gunda”, journalists were said to be “high on weed or opium”, and the channel was accused of failing to maintain the “dignity of death” of a deceased anchor. It also referred to remarks describing a News Director as a “nautanki director”.

The Division Bench held that such statements were prima facie disparaging and capable of causing serious reputational injury, which could not be adequately compensated by damages alone, and therefore warranted interim protection.

The Court observed that the Single Judge erred in treating the availability of damages as sufficient to deny interim relief, noting that harm to reputation and goodwill of a media house may constitute irreparable injury.

The bench also rejected the argument that the parties operate in entirely different spheres, observing that despite differing revenue models—subscription-based and advertisement-driven—both entities function in the digital news space and target overlapping audiences.

Newslaundry had argued that its programmes were satirical, critical, and in public interest, and that the use of clips fell within the doctrine of fair dealing.

However, the Court observed:

“The Defendants have self-awarded the title of the 'highest standard of journalism' and claim to be protectors of public interest. This self-entitlement cannot serve as a blanket justification for disparaging remarks. 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, which does not benefit public discourse or social dialogue.”

The Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge that TV Today had established a prima facie case of commercial disparagement in respect of certain remarks and also held that the defence of fair dealing in relation to copyright infringement requires detailed examination of evidence at trial.

However, the bench disagreed with the refusal to grant interim relief, holding that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff and that the likelihood of irreparable harm justified removal of specific derogatory statements.

Accordingly, the court partly allowed the appeal and directed the removal of particular disparaging remarks, while clarifying that the issues relating to copyright, fair dealing, satire, and defamation will be finally decided at trial after full consideration of evidence.

The interim protection granted by the Court will operate during the pendency of the suit.