Title: TV Today Network Limited v. Capital TV and Ors
Decided on: 12th October, 2023
I.A. 20151/2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Introduction
According to the Delhi High Court, one aspect of the freedom of speech and expression protected by the Indian Constitution includes the ability to remark on material posted on social media or broadcast on television. A media corporation that owns many television news channels requested an injunction to stop a competitor online news outlet from airing what it considered to be copyrighted and defamatory content. The competing news organisation claimed that the principles of fair use and truth applied to its broadcasts. The Court denied the request for an interim injunction on the grounds that the nature of the content of the competing company was a factual issue that could only be resolved in a full trial.
Facts of the Case
As a member of the “India Today Group,” TV Today Network is an Indian firm that runs well-known television channels like “Aaj Tak,” “Aaj Tak HD,” “India Today Television,” and “Good News TV” . With 47.9 million YouTube subscribers and 14.7 million Twitter followers under the handle “@aajtak,” TV Today said that its channels and related services had become “household names” and had gained significant print and social media “recognition.” The stations had also won numerous honours, including the Exchange4media News Broadcasting Award and the Indian Television Academy’s “Best Hindi News Channel”.
In response to several videos and articles that News Laundry had aired on its own channels, TV Today filed a lawsuit for defamation and copyright infringement against the digital news platform News Laundry Media Private Limited.
Courts analysis and decision
The verdict was given by Delhi High Court Justice Asha Menon. The main question up for debate before the Court was whether TV Today, who had accused News Laundry of copyright infringement, defamation, and business disparagement, should receive an interim injunction.
The Court considered News Laundry’s ability to assert its “fair dealing” and “fair comment” defences. It made reference to Slim and Others v. Daily Telegraph Ltd. and Others [1968] 2 Q.B. 157 in the UK, where Lord Denning had said that “the question of such defences of “justification” and “fair comment” would have to be founded on an absence of dishonest motives and bad faith” and that “even if the words conveyed derogatory imputations or the information was exaggerated or prejudiced or very badly expressed, allowing the people to read all sorts of innuendos into the badly expressed opinion, nevertheless, the defence of ‘fair comment’ would be a good defence.
The Court noted that “fair dealing” and “fair comment” could be decided only after considering parameters like “whether the comments were devoid of malice; they were honestly made; and in public interest; the reproduction was of short excerpts; there was some creative input of the copier/reproducer; they constituted criticism and review, and there was no blatant act of copying”. The Court held that more factual consideration was needed to decide this issue as well which could only be decided in a trial.
The Court emphasised that the right to freedom of speech and expression encompasses the freedom to receive information, the freedom to disseminate ideas, the freedom to broadcast programmes, as well as the “right to publish and circulate one’s ideas, opinions and views with complete freedom and by resorting to the available means of publication” available not only to the electronic media and television channels, but also social media platforms. The publication stated that “the availability of a multitude of reporting styles” is in the interest of the general public and that the general public also has a stake in broadcasters offering fair commentary on current events and criticising other programmes. The Court, however, also emphasised the significance of safeguarding reputations under Article 21 of the Constitution and urged a balance between the constitutional rights.
Accordingly, the Court refused TV Today’s application for an interim interdict against News Laundry’s broadcasting of content from their network and making allegedly defamatory comments.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aashi Narayan
