New Delhi [India], January 22 : The Delhi High Court on Thursday expressed concern about the language used in a Newslaundry video commenting on television content aired by the TV Today Network.
The court observed that the use of the word "shit" to describe a television programme could be considered offensive.
A Division Bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla noted that journalist Manisha Pande used the expression while referring to a video relating to Good News Today, a channel operated by TV Today. The Bench orally observed that such language was inappropriate and amounted to disparagement.
The court cautioned that it may pass strong observations which could have serious professional consequences for the journalist concerned. It remarked that the language used fell short of the basic standards of decency expected in journalism and stated that it would not hesitate to make its views known in open court or, if required, to implead the journalist as a party.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that criticism by itself does not amount to disparagement. It was observed that TV Today cannot treat every critical video or unfavourable comment as defamatory merely because it disagrees with the content.
The observations were made while the court was hearing cross-appeals filed by Newslaundry and TV Today against an order passed by a single judge in a suit alleging copyright infringement, defamation and disparagement. TV Today has challenged the refusal to grant interim relief, while Newslaundry has objected to the prima facie findings recorded against it.
During the hearing, Newslaundry maintained that while better language could have been used, the case was not about isolated words but about the right to critique media content. It was argued that the proceedings were an attempt to curb critical commentary.
On the other hand, TV Today contended that its broadcast clips were used for extended periods, accompanied by derogatory remarks about its journalists, going beyond fair use and constituting copyright infringement.
While disapproving of the specific expletive used, the Bench observed that comments on presentation style, editorial approach or programme quality fall within the scope of legitimate criticism. The court noted that even strongly worded opinions, including calling a programme "nonsense," would generally amount to comment rather than disparagement.
The Bench clarified that it did not intend to express any views on the broader role or functioning of the media and would confine itself strictly to the legal issues raised in the case. The Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict in the appeals.