The Delhi High Court expressed concern over the manner in which certain sections of the media reported and amplified its oral remarks made during the hearing of an appeal arising out of a dispute between TV Today Network and digital media platform Newslaundry. The Court observed that its oral comments, made in the course of judicial deliberations, were taken out of context and sensationalised, resulting in widespread circulation on social media platforms and provoking a wave of hostile and abusive reactions directed at Newslaundry journalist Manisha Pande. The Court clarified that it never intended to initiate any proceedings against the journalist or cause any prejudice to her professional standing and emphasised that the reporting could have been more responsible, restrained, and faithful to the context in which the remarks were made.
The observations were made by a Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla while addressing the fallout from the reporting of oral comments made during the hearing of cross appeals filed by TV Today Network and Newslaundry. The dispute between the parties involved allegations of defamation, disparagement, and infringement of copyright, with TV Today alleging that certain Newslaundry videos were defamatory and misused its copyrighted content, while Newslaundry had also challenged findings adverse to it. During the hearing, the Court had engaged in an exchange with counsel and made oral observations assessing the material placed before it, as is customary in appellate proceedings.
The Court noted that during the hearing it had observed that TV Today appeared to be overly sensitive to criticism and that out of several videos cited by TV Today as objectionable, only one appeared to raise concerns. That particular video had been anchored by Manisha Pande, and it was in this limited context that the Court’s remarks referred to her work. The Bench explained that these oral comments were part of a broader judicial discussion and were never meant to single out the journalist for any adverse action or personal criticism. However, isolated portions of these remarks were extracted and presented as standalone statements in media reports, which were then circulated widely without the accompanying legal context.
According to the Court, the manner in which the remarks were reported created a misleading narrative suggesting that the judiciary was acting against the journalist or that her career was at risk. The Court observed that such narratives were entirely incorrect and did not reflect the intent or tenor of the hearing. It noted that the counsel present during the proceedings clearly understood the spirit in which the observations were made, but once the remarks were removed from that environment and disseminated in isolation, they were prone to misinterpretation and misuse.
The Bench expressed particular concern over the consequences of such reporting, pointing out that the sensationalised headlines and social media posts led to a barrage of hateful comments and online abuse directed at the journalist. The Court stated that this outcome was deeply unfortunate and unnecessary, and that it underscored the responsibility that comes with reporting on judicial proceedings. While reiterating its commitment to transparency and open court proceedings, the Court stressed that freedom to report must be exercised with a sense of responsibility, especially when reporting on oral observations that do not form part of a final judicial determination.
The Court made it clear that it had no intention of gagging the media or restricting coverage of court proceedings. At the same time, it emphasised that selective reporting of oral remarks, without proper context, can distort public understanding of the judicial process and unfairly target individuals who are incidentally mentioned during hearings. The Bench observed that judges often make tentative or exploratory remarks during hearings to test arguments or understand issues, and such remarks should not be treated as final conclusions or definitive findings.
In a candid reflection on the broader implications of sensational reporting, the Court noted that repeated misrepresentation of oral comments could have a chilling effect on judicial discourse. It observed that some judges might choose to limit or avoid oral engagement during hearings to prevent their remarks from being misconstrued or sensationalised outside the courtroom. The Bench remarked that some of its colleagues had already adopted such an approach, preferring silence over the risk of their words being taken out of context and amplified in a manner that invites public backlash or misunderstanding.
The Court placed on record a clear clarification that it did not intend to proceed against Manisha Pande in any manner. It stated that there was no question of her losing her job, facing legal consequences, or being targeted by the judiciary. The Bench acknowledged that she could be a competent professional and that the episode of adverse reporting and online hostility appeared to be an aberration rather than a reflection of her work or the Court’s view of her as a journalist. The Court conveyed that the journalist need not have any apprehension arising out of the oral remarks made during the hearing.
The clarification issued by the Court was intended to correct the misconceptions that had arisen due to sensational media coverage and to place the record straight regarding its intent. The Bench emphasised that its role was to adjudicate disputes between parties before it and not to pass judgment on individuals who may be associated with content under scrutiny, unless such adjudication was directly required by the issues in the case. The Court reiterated that its oral comments were directed at assessing the legal merits of the dispute between the litigating parties and were not personal remarks against any journalist.
In explaining the context of the case, the Court referred to the nature of the appeal filed by TV Today Network, which owns television channels such as India Today and Aaj Tak. TV Today had alleged that Newslaundry had published videos that defamed the network and disparaged its content, including alleged misuse of copyrighted material. Newslaundry, in turn, had challenged aspects of the findings against it, resulting in cross appeals being heard by the High Court. During the hearing of these appeals, the Court examined multiple videos cited by TV Today and offered its preliminary views on their content as part of the judicial process.
The Court noted that its oral observation that only one video appeared to be problematic was actually favourable to Newslaundry in the broader context, as it indicated that most of the impugned content did not raise serious concerns in the Court’s view. However, the focus of media reporting shifted disproportionately to the reference to the one video anchored by Pande, ignoring the overall tenor of the remarks. This selective focus, according to the Court, contributed to a distorted portrayal of the proceedings and an unfair spotlight on the journalist.
The Bench underscored that oral remarks during hearings are not binding determinations and do not constitute the final judgment of the Court. Such remarks are often part of an evolving dialogue between the Bench and the Bar and are subject to change as arguments progress and the Court reflects further on the issues. Treating such remarks as definitive pronouncements, especially in sensational headlines, undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings and misleads the public.
In concluding its clarification, the Court reiterated the need for balanced, accurate, and contextually faithful reporting of court proceedings. It acknowledged the vital role of the media in informing the public about judicial processes but emphasised that this role carries with it a duty to avoid sensationalism that can harm individuals and erode public trust. The Court’s observations served as a reminder that while open justice is a cornerstone of the legal system, the manner in which judicial discourse is presented to the public can significantly influence perceptions and consequences beyond the courtroom.
The High Court’s clarification thus aimed to dispel misconceptions, reassure the journalist concerned, and caution against the practice of extracting and amplifying isolated oral comments without context. By placing its concerns and clarifications on record, the Court sought to reaffirm its commitment to fairness, transparency, and responsible engagement between the judiciary and the media, while making it unequivocally clear that no adverse action was ever contemplated against Manisha Pande.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.