Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J
HT MEDIA LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ARUN KUMAR GUPTA – Respondent
RFA 724/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Mr. Madhur Dhingra, Ms. Dhalguni Nigam, Mr. Aman Khemka
For the Respondents: None
The ruling established that for defamation claims, intent to harm must be proved, emphasizing journalistic freedom while considering reputational harm.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Defamation - Permanent injunction and damages - Plaintiff required to prove defamatory statement, publication, and reference to the plaintiff - Appellants published article aimed at raising public awareness without intention to defame - Trial Court awarded Rs. 40 Lakhs to plaintiff - Appellants contested the ruling citing constitutional rights of press for responsible reporting. (Paras 10, 14, 16, 22.1, 22.4)
(B) Journalism and Defamation - Communication of allegations does not necessarily imply culpability - The article reported ongoing legal matters without asserting guilt of any involved parties (Paras 19, 21, 22.1, 22.4, 23.1, 23.3)
Facts of the case:
The suit was initiated by the plaintiff seeking damages of Rs. 1 Crore for defamation arising from an article published by the appellants. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting substantial monetary compensation.
Findings of Court:
The defendants maintained that they acted within journalistic standards, using careful language to reflect the ongoing legal situation.
Issues: The court addressed whether the publication constituted defamation and the extent of the appellants' liability despite the cautious reporting.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to balance freedom of press with protection against defamation, highlighting that defamatory intent must be proven.
Result: The operation of the trial court’s judgment stayed pending appeal proceedings.
ORDER
14.08.2025
CM APPL. 48874/2025 & CM APPL. 48875/2025 (For Exemptions)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of.
CM APPL. 48876/2025 (For Enlargement of Time for Filing Court Fees)
3. The present is an application filed by the appellants seeking enlargement of time for filing Court Fees.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that requisite Court Fees, alreadystands paid.
5. Noting the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 50035/2025 (For Placing on Record Additional Documents)
6. The present is an application on behalf of the appellants to place on record additional documents.
7. Issue notice to the respondents by all modes, returnable on the next date.
RFA 724/2025 & CM APPL. 48873/2025
8. The present matter has been received on transfer/marking.
9. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 06th June, 2025, passed by the District Judge, South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi in C.S. DJ No. 6574/2016.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the aforesaid suit had been filed by respondent no. 1, inter alia, seeking permanent injunction and damages of Rs. 1 Crore for defamation of respondent no. 1.
11. By way of the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of respondent no. 1 and against the appellants, thereby, awarding a sum of Rs. 40 Lakhs in favour of respondent no. 1, which sum is to be recovered from the appellants herein, who were defendant nos. 1 and 7 in the suit.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to the article, which became the basis for filing the suit for defamation. The said article titled as “Get Smart, Email with Care” was authored by appellant no.2 and published by appellant no.1 on 28th January, 2007, in the publication of the appellant no.1.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 19, 21, 22.1, 22.4, 23.1 and 23.3 of the impugned judgment, which read as under:
“xxxxxxxxx
19. In a suit for damages on the averments of defamation, plaintiff is required to prove following things: (i) Defamatory statement - The statement must be the one that would harm, the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of right thinking members of the society, leading them to shun or avoid the individual; (ii) Publication - The defamatory statement must be communicated to a third party, not just the plaintiff themselves; (iii) Reference to the plaintiff - The statement must be understood by a reasonable person as referring to the plaintiff, even if notexplicitlynamed.
xxxxxxxxx
21. From the perusal of admitted facts and the impugned article, it is clear that defendant no. 1 and 7 have reported the news article that the article was published about the issue of misuse of email and lack of awareness regarding prevalent law. The purpose of news article has been duly explained by defendant no. 7, who entered into witness box as DW-2, during his cross examination. The relevant portion of his crossexaminationisasfollows:
"Q-15: The court case papers remain in the custody of Court and do not come in public domain except some orders. Can you specify which papersofwhichCourtcasewereseenbyyou?
A:AsfarasIcanremember,Iwasworkingonastorytoraiseawareness among the general public regarding the responsible use of emails. Although, the Indian IT Act had been passed several years ago I felt that it was not adequately known among the general public that anemail was now being recognized by Jaw as a legal document. Men I started doing my research my attention was drawn to several public sections at technology conferences and industry conclaves where experts were now beginning to discuss the digital field that India swiftly entering into just like the penis of irresponsible use of artificial intelligence are not adequately known today and the perils of the irresponsible manners of commenting on soci
