Delhi HC Flags Selective Social Media Reporting, Clarifies No Action Against Journalist

The Delhi High Court clarified it does not intend to take any adverse action against a journalist following its earlier oral observations in a case. The court expressed concern over how selective excerpts from proceedings were circulated on social media, leading to online hostility. It emphasized that strong oral remarks during hearings are meant to test legal arguments, not signal final conclusions. The bench was hearing cross-appeals between Newslaundry and TV Today Network and has reserved its verdict.

Key Points: Delhi HC on Social Media Reporting, No Action Against Journalist

  • Court clarifies no coercive action
  • Warns against selective social media excerpts
  • Stresses oral remarks aren't final judgments
  • Says reporting must consider downstream impact
2 min read

Delhi HC explains remarks, flags selective social media reporting in Newslaundry-TV Today dispute

Delhi High Court clarifies remarks in Newslaundry-TV Today case, warns against selective social media reporting, says no action against journalist.

"I do not intend to act against the journalist or prejudice her career. - Justice C Hari Shankar"

New Delhi, January 23

The Delhi High Court on Friday clarified that it does not intend to take any coercive or adverse action arising from its earlier oral observations in a pending matter, while expressing concern over the manner in which selective excerpts from court proceedings were circulated on social media, leading to online hostility.

In this context, the Bench referred to reporting related to Manisha Pande, a journalist associated with Newslaundry. The Court made it clear that it had no intention of proceeding against her or prejudicing her professional career.

"I do not intend to act against the journalist or prejudice her career," Justice C Hari Shankar said, adding that the remarks made earlier were limited to the manner in which certain comments were expressed and were never meant to invite action against any individual.

The Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that a portion of a news report was taken out of context, turned into a separate social media post, and widely circulated, which subsequently led to hate messages. The Court noted that neither the judiciary nor the media would want such consequences to follow from court reporting.

Justice Hari Shankar emphasised that the Court was not attempting to gag the media or restrict reporting of oral observations made during hearings.

However, he urged that while reporting court proceedings is legitimate, publishers should remain conscious of the possible impact and downstream consequences of how judicial remarks are presented.

The Bench further explained that strong oral observations are often made during hearings to elicit meaningful legal assistance from the Bar and to test arguments, not to signal final conclusions.

It noted that such engagement frequently leads to constructive responses, including detailed submissions on points of law, which ultimately assist the Court in deciding appeals.

Clarifying its position once again, the Court stated that it does not propose to take any action against the journalist. Justice Hari Shankar remarked that the comments reflected an immediate reaction during the course of arguments and should not be read as a judgment on the journalist's overall work or professional standing.

The observations were made during the hearing of cross-appeals between Newslaundry and TV Today Network, in which the Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict, reiterating that it will confine itself strictly to the legal issues involved.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

R
Rohit P
Good that the court clarified. But this also shows a problem with our media ecosystem. Taking things out of context to create viral content for clicks and engagement is damaging public discourse. We need more maturity from both sides.
A
Aman W
The court's concern is valid. Selective reporting leads to online mobs attacking individuals. Manisha Pande is a good journalist. Glad the court made it clear they don't intend to harm her career. Hope this sets a precedent for how court proceedings are discussed online.
S
Sarah B
While I appreciate the court's clarification, I respectfully think the initial strong remarks could have been avoided. The judiciary must be extra careful with its words, knowing they will be amplified. The power imbalance is huge.
V
Vikram M
Exactly! This is what happens when people don't understand how courts work. Lawyers and judges have heated exchanges to test arguments. It's part of the process. Turning that into a social media scandal helps no one. Let the legal process finish.
N
Nisha Z
A much-needed lesson for all of us consuming news on Twitter and Instagram. Don't jump to conclusions based on a 15-second clip or a sensational headline. Context matters, especially for something as complex as a court hearing.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50