Delhi High Court Orders Zee Media to Air Businessman Vikas Garg’s Response to Allegedly Defamatory Broadcast

The Delhi High Court has directed Zee Media Corporation to provide prominent broadcast space for a businessman, Vikas Garg, to respond to allegations made in a video aired about him on a Zee Media news channel. The Court noted that Garg had approached the court after the airing of a video report purportedly containing serious defamatory content, and that the network had not offered him a right of reply at the time of the telecast. The Court emphasized that media platforms are obliged to uphold principles of fairness, particularly when allegations are made against individuals in formats that reach broad audiences.

During the hearing, the Court focused on the legal and moral responsibility entrenched in journalistic practice, highlighting that individuals accused publicly should have the opportunity to respond. The petitioner submitted that the video had presented allegations of misconduct in a manner that implied wrongdoing without verifying the facts thoroughly. It was argued that the failure to offer a prejudiced person an opportunity to respond violated the principles of natural justice and journalistic ethics.

Zee Media agreed that the petitioner had not been given a right of reply prior to the original broadcast but contended that the allegations were based on material in the public domain. The channel sought time to prepare a response but did not oppose the relief sought. The government counsel did not raise objections to the petitioner’s position and permitted the matter to be adjudicated on merits rather than technical objections.

The Court took note of jurisprudence emphasizing that media houses must follow editorial standards and not become instruments of unilateral narrative, especially on matters that involve accusations of criminal or unethical conduct. It held that it is incumbent upon broadcasting entities to correct misinformation and allow subjects of reports adequate space to present their side, particularly when the allegations are serious and have reputational consequences.

In its mandate, the Court required that Zee Media air the petitioner’s response prominently, equivalent in duration, prominence of placement, and presentation style to the original allegedly defamatory video. The broadcast must occur during the same time slot as the initial report, with comparable treatment including headlines, visuals, and prominence in the channel’s programming schedule. It further ordered that this corrective content should be treated as news and not relegated to a disclaimer or sidebar mention, ensuring that the response reaches the same audience in a manner that genuinely reflects parity.

The Court also directed Zee Media to file a compliance affidavit confirming that the response had been aired in accordance with its directives. Additionally, the petitioners were granted the right to vet the draft of the response beforehand to ensure accuracy of presentation and to verify that the response faithfully states Garg’s version of events without distortion.

Given the importance of timely redress in matters involving reputational harm, the Court stipulated that the corrective broadcast must be completed within a short timeframe, compelling Zee Media to prioritize its airing. The Court also cautioned that failure to comply may attract legal consequences, including contempt proceedings, given the binding nature of judicial orders.

The relief was granted while the underlying petition challenging the original broadcast’s content remains pending. The Court clarified that the direction for the response broadcast is interim in nature, and that the merits of the defamation claim or liability of Zee Media would be decided at a later stage. Nonetheless, the immediate relief seeks to restore balance and ensure that viewers receive the rebuttal alongside the original narrative.

The ruling reflects the Court’s commitment to balance between freedom of the press and protection of individual reputation, recognizing the significant reach and influence of broadcast media. It reaffirms that media entities cannot escape responsibility for damaging allegations by invoking journalistic licence when they fail to provide adequate opportunity for rebuttal. The Delhi High Court thus ensured procedural fairness and equitable remedy in the public sphere by compelling the network to facilitate counter-narratives in its programming.

The petitioner’s legal team expressed appreciation for the Court’s emphasis on equitable media accountability and confirmed that the response would be prepared promptly. The channel, through its counsel, confirmed readiness to comply with the order and acknowledged the procedural importance of the directive.

The matter remains subject to further hearings regarding the substance of the defamation allegations, the accuracy of the original video, and potential relief including damages or further correction. However, the immediate order mandating broadcast of the petitioner’s response stands as a protective measure to prevent ongoing reputational harm and uphold fairness in media discourse.