Delhi High Court Warns News Channel Against Disparagement Over Unverified Britannia Claims

The Delhi High Court on 6 April warned Information TV Private Limited for airing segments criticising Britannia Industries' products without independent laboratory verification, noting that such reporting can appear prima facie disparaging.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela emphasised that relying solely on medical opinions cannot defend a disparagement claim. He observed:

“We can understand if you're conducting some kind of a test... and you're giving credible actual test results.”

The dispute arose after the channel claimed that Britannia's “low segment” products, widely consumed in rural areas, contribute to obesity and diabetes.

The channel defended its report as “independent journalism,” citing statements from seven doctors across four states and public complaints. It also alleged that Britannia's advertisements misled consumers by presenting products made with “refined wheat flour” (maida) as “wheat.” The channel argued:

“This is prima facie misleading… they are not [wheat] and it contains the maida.”

Justice Gedela expressed skepticism over the channel's approach, noting the absence of credible technical analysis. When the channel admitted it had not conducted independent lab tests, the Court said:

“You're not somebody who's gone the walk and suddenly you start asking people—you have a responsibility… a responsibility to give responsible news.”

The Bench clarified that anecdotal evidence and doctors' statements do not carry the same weight as scientific data in disparagement cases. Justice Gedela remarked:

“Doctors saying something is still not something which is evidence, correct?”

He further warned that investigative journalists must do more than report complaints, as public complaints without scientific backing risk unlawful disparagement. The Court directed the channel to verify whether ingredients genuinely harm consumers rather than relying solely on doctors' opinions.

The channel informed the Court that it had already stopped telecasting the contested segments and had “no intention of repeating it.” The Court recorded:

“Further telecast or retelling of this subject news segment shall not be telecasted.”

Accordingly, the Court issued notice to the other defendants, including the news entity's directors, and granted the channel four weeks to file a detailed reply. The matter will appear before the Joint Registrar in July and return to Court on 17 September 2026.