In a significant hearing concerning the boundaries of media criticism, satire, and professional decency, the Delhi High Court on Thursday expressed strong displeasure over the language used by digital news portal Newslaundry in its critique of TV Today Network (the parent company of Aaj Tak and India Today).

A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla took particular offense at the use of the word "shit" by Newslaundry journalist Manisha Pande while referring to content on Good News Today, a channel under the TV Today umbrella. The Court’s remarks highlighted a growing judicial concern regarding the "tone and tenor" of modern digital reporting.

The proceedings took an intense turn when the Bench viewed clips presented by TV Today’s counsel. The judges were visibly unimpressed by the choice of vocabulary used by the digital portal's anchors.

The Court questioned the fundamental ethics of such reporting, suggesting that the journalist in question seemed to lack the basic understanding of professional decency. In an unusually stern observation, the Court warned that its final order could have severe personal consequences for the reporter’s professional future.

"Are you continuing with this anchor? She should be thrown out. She has no business being a reporter. She doesn’t know the basics," the Bench remarked. "We will comment on her personally... We may pass an order which will place her entire career in disarray."

The Court emphasized that while criticism is a right, there is a "limit to everything," and the use of "gross" language crosses the line from critique into personal disparagement.

The case stems from a 2021 lawsuit filed by TV Today Network against Newslaundry. The legacy media house alleged that Newslaundry had engaged in:

Copyright Infringement: By using long clips of their news broadcasts without permission.
Defamation: By making malicious statements against their anchors and management.
Disparagement: By tarnishing the reputation and commercial value of their channels through mockery.

Newslaundry, represented by Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, has consistently maintained that its content is a form of media critique and satire. They argue that as a "media watchdog," they are protected under the right to free speech and the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law, which allows the use of copyrighted material for the purpose of reporting, criticism, or review.

In July 2022, a single-judge bench had refused to grant an interim injunction (a stay) against Newslaundry, leading both parties to file appeals—TV Today seeking a ban on the videos, and Newslaundry challenging certain adverse findings made by the judge.

One of the most crucial aspects of Thursday’s hearing was the Court’s attempt to draw a line between what constitutes an illegal attack on a brand and what is simply a harsh opinion.

While the Court was angry about the word "shit," it simultaneously protected the portal’s right to use other descriptive phrases. The Bench clarified that TV Today cannot claim "disparagement" every time they are criticized or mocked.

The Court noted that the following phrases used by Newslaundry fall under the category of Criticism (Protected Speech):

"Method anchoring"
"Thoda drama, thoda gimmick" (A little drama, a little gimmick)
"Soap opera"
"Killing sports journalism, Aaj Tak style"

The Bench observed: "Every word they say is not disparaging. This is commenting on what you are showing. This is criticism... Even if he says your programme is absolute nonsense, that’s not disparaging, that’s a comment."

The judges explained that saying a program is done for "cheap thrills" is a subjective view on the quality of the content, which a critic is allowed to have. However, using "gross" or "unparliamentary" language against a fellow professional is where the legal protection begins to thin.

For Newslaundry: Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao admitted that while some language could have been better, the lawsuit was essentially an attempt by a large media house to silence a smaller critic. He argued that Newslaundry’s role is to call out the "fourth estate" (the media) when it deviates from its duty.

"I take their clip and comment on it. Yes, I should have used better language. But somebody wants to shut me down," Rao stated.

Advocate Bani Dikshit, also appearing for Newslaundry, defended the use of the phrase "nanga nach" (nude dance), arguing it was used metaphorically to describe the chaotic or sensationalist nature of certain broadcasts, and must be understood within that specific context.

For TV Today: Advocate Hrishikesh Baruah, representing the news giant, argued that the portal went far beyond "fair use." He pointed out that Newslaundry used TV Today’s copyrighted videos for substantial durations. He contended that the primary goal was not just critique, but to disparage the anchors and the reputation of the channels to build their own following.

The hearing concluded with a philosophical note on the state of Indian media. Senior Advocate Rao remarked that Newslaundry was founded on the principle that the media serves as the "conscience keepers of democracy," but suggested that a shift has occurred in how mainstream media operates today.

Interestingly, the Court declined to enter into a debate about the quality of modern journalism. Justice Hari Shankar remarked, "We don’t want to express our views about what the media is doing. We are restricting ourselves."

The Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict on the appeals. This judgment is expected to be a landmark ruling for digital media in India. It will likely answer two major questions:

The Language Quotient: Does the use of "foul" or "indecent" language strip a journalist of the protection of "fair comment"?
The Satire Limit: How much of a competitor's copyrighted footage can a satire show use before it becomes copyright infringement?

For now, the message from the Bench is clear: You have the right to call a program "nonsense" or "gimmicky," but the moment you abandon professional decency and use "gross" epithets, the law may no longer stand in your corner.

The legal and media fraternity now waits for the written verdict, which could redefine the rules of engagement between legacy media houses and digital critics.

Case Title: TV Today Network Ltd. v. Newslaundry Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla