The Supreme Court recently stayed criminal defamation proceedings against Aaj Tak in a case where former Haryana MLA and businessman Gopal Goyal Kanda alleged that the channel had linked him to the 2022 death of actor and BJP leader Sonali Phogat [TV Today Network Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.].
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih issued notice on the petition filed by TV Today Network, which owns Aaj Tak, and directed that the proceedings before the trial magistrate remain stayed until the next date of hearing.
The controversy began in October 2020 when Kanda served a cease-and-desist notice to several media outlets, accusing them of publishing material that tarnished his reputation. The matter gained traction in December 2022 when he lodged a police complaint in Gurugram naming ten news channels, including Aaj Tak and its sister platform Lallantop, for allegedly defaming him by connecting him to Phogat’s death.
The complaint led to an application before the Magistrate who directed the police to register a non-cognizable report (NCR) and conduct an investigation under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
In December 2022, the magistrate further observed that police had the power to order removal of allegedly defamatory online content, remarking that “the internet never sleeps; and the internet never forgets.” Acting on these directions, Gurugram police filed a chargesheet in May 2024 under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
TV Today then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking to quash the NCR, the chargesheet, and the magistrate’s orders. It argued that defamation complaints could not be investigated by the police under Section 156(3) or Section 155 of the CrPC since Section 199 required such cases to proceed only on a complaint filed by an aggrieved person directly before a court.
However, on August 6 the High Court dismissed the plea, holding that the magistrate had acted within jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that Kanda’s complaint disclosed a non-cognizable offence, enabling the magistrate to direct an NCR under Section 155(2). It found no error in the procedure followed and refused to interfere with the chargesheet.
Challenging that order, TV Today moved the Supreme Court, contending that the proceedings were “stillborn” and fundamentally flawed.
The company argued that delegating to police the power to decide what content was defamatory violated its rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It also submitted that reportage of high-profile cases such as Phogat’s death was protected speech.
After hearing submissions made by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, the Supreme Court issued notice and granted interim protection by staying the proceedings before the trial court till the next date of hearing.
TV Today was represented by Luthra along with advocates Hrishikesh Baruah, Anurag Mishra, Madhu, Utkarsh Dwivedi, Yashaswy Ghosh and Pragya Agarwal.
[Read Order]