Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna directed that the operation of the judgment and decree dated June 6, 2025, of the District Judge, South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, shall remain stayed. The impugned judgment had decreed a defamation suit in favour of the plaintiff, awarding ₹40 lakhs in damages. The High Court ordered that the stay shall continue until the next date of hearing, while notices were issued to the contesting respondent for filing a reply.

The matter before the High Court arose out of an appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, in Civil Suit DJ No. 6574/2016. The original suit had been instituted by the plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction and damages of ₹1 crore on grounds of alleged defamation. The basis of the defamation claim was an article authored by appellant no. 2 and published by appellant no. 1 on January 28, 2007. The article, titled “Get Smart, Email with Care”, was published in the newspaper owned by appellant no. 1.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Convict Completing Fixed-Term Life Imprisonment Entitled To Release Without Applying For Remission

The plaintiff alleged that the article contained statements that harmed his reputation in the eyes of the public, portraying him as involved in financial irregularities and professional misconduct. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence, and cross-examinations, decreed the suit partially in favour of the plaintiff. It awarded damages of ₹40 lakhs against defendant nos. 1 and 7 (the appellants before the High Court), while holding that the publication had caused defamation.

The Trial Court’s judgment recorded that, in cases of defamation, the plaintiff is required to prove three elements:

1. The presence of a defamatory statement, understood as one likely to harm reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
2. Publication of the statement to third parties.
3. Reference of the statement to the plaintiff, whether directly named or indirectly identifiable.

The article in question was admitted to have been published. During cross-examination, the author (defendant no. 7) testified that his intent was to raise awareness regarding responsible use of electronic communication. He stated that, during research, he had consulted cyber law expert Mr. Pawan Duggal, who referred to a Delhi High Court case involving Integrix. He explained that, while certain documents allegedly linked the plaintiff to an email under scrutiny, he consciously used cautious terms such as “purportedly” and “alleged” in the article, in line with journalistic practice.

The defendants contended that the article was published in good faith, was based on publicly available material, and was not intended to malign the plaintiff. They further argued that as members of the press, they had constitutional rights to report on matters, even those pending in court, provided no conclusions were drawn regarding guilt.

The plaintiff, however, maintained that the article falsely attributed resignation circumstances and financial irregularities to him, and that no such allegations were ever part of the judicial record in related suits pending at the time. The Trial Court, after examining pleadings and judicial records in Suit Nos. I and II, recorded that while the plaintiff had resigned voluntarily, there were no allegations of financial irregularities against him. Nonetheless, the Trial Court concluded that the publication contained false assertions damaging to his reputation and granted damages.

The appellants approached the High Court, arguing that the Trial Court had erred in its findings. They submitted that the article was responsibly worded, with cautionary terms, and its primary purpose was awareness creation. They also pointed out that the plaintiff had settled with other defendants in the original suit, leaving only one contesting respondent in the appeal.

Justice Mini Pushkarna examined the appeal and recorded the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. The Court noted the arguments that the Trial Court itself had acknowledged the purpose of the article as public awareness. The High Court recorded: “the only purpose of publishing the article in question, was to make the public aware about misuse of the electronic communications, such as Email and that there was no intention to harm the reputation or defame the respondent no.1, in any manner whatsoever.”

It was further observed: “the Trial Court itself recognized the aforesaid fact, and it was only on the basis of the finding that the respondent no.1 herein, was not guilty of any financial irregularities, though he was removed from the company where he was working, the Trial Court has held that defamation was made out.”

On the manner of reporting, the Court recorded the appellants’ submission: “the article was cautiously worded using the terms like ‘alleged’ and ‘purportedly’, ensuring balanced reporting, while reflecting the non-conclusive nature of the allegations.”

Regarding the parties involved, the High Court took note of the settlement: “the respondent no.1 herein, who was the plaintiff in the suit, had settled the matter with respondent nos. 2 to 6, who are only the pro forma respondents in the present appeal. She, thus, submits that the only contesting respondent in the present appeal is respondent no.1.”

Also Read: AP High Court Orders Fresh Counselling | 800+ Govt Staff Transfers In Kurnool And Krishna Quashed Over MLA-MP Interference

Justice Mini Pushkarna issued directions concerning the further conduct of the case. The Court stated: “Issue notice to respondent no. 1, by all modes, upon filing of Process Fee.” It directed that a reply be filed within a period of four weeks and a rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter.

Importantly, the Court ordered: “Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that the operation of 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, shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing.”

The Court further directed that the Trial Court record be requisitioned: “Let electronic and bookmarked copy of the Trial Court Record be requisitioned and attached with the present file.” The matter was then re-notified for December 19, 2025.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Mr. Madhur Dhingra, Ms. Dhalguni Nigam, and Mr. Aman Khemka, Advocates

Case Title: HT Media Limited & Anr. v. Arun Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Case Number: RFA 724/2025, CM APPL. 48873/2025, CM APPL. 48874/2025, CM APPL. 48875/2025, CM APPL. 48876/2025 & CM APPL. 50035/2025

Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna