Acquitted person's right to dignity can trump freedom of press: Delhi High Court

An individual's right to dignity and reputation can override the freedom of the press, observed the Delhi High Court today while upholding a trial court’s decision to restrain the circulation of newspaper articles on a banker's arrest in a money laundering case from which he was eventually discharged.

The Court held that the individual’s right to dignity and reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution can override press freedom, particularly where the continued online availability of news reports causes enduring reputational harm to those acquitted or discharged from criminal cases.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha passed the ruling on an appeal filed by IE Online Media Services Private Limited, which runs indianexpress.com.

The newspaper had challenged a trial court’s interim order that had directed it to de-index certain articles relating to a professional banker who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2023, but later discharged from the case.

The Court dismissed IE's appeal, holding that,

"While the media enjoys freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, such right is not absolute and stands correspondingly delimited by the right of an individual to dignity and reputation traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution. It has been observed that in appropriate cases, particularly where continued dissemination of content results in disproportionate harm to an individual, the right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution must yield to the right under Article 21 of the Constitution."

The Court further observed,

“The perpetual digital availability of such materials, even after the factual foundation has ceased to exist, raises serious concerns of enduring reputational harm and stigma."

The banker, who argued that he had an unblemished career spanning over 17 years in international banking institutions, was arrested by the ED in August 2023 in connection with alleged irregularities relating to Moser Baer India Limited.

Several media reports were published at the time, reporting his arrest and associating him with the alleged offence.

The jurisdictional court discharged him from the case on August 17, 2024, and the complaint itself was later dismissed.

However, the articles mentioning the banker's arrest continued to remain accessible on digital platforms and search engines.

Alleging that this perpetuated a false impression of guilt and caused serious harm to his reputation and professional prospects, the banker approached a civil court seeking injunctions, damages, and directions for the de-indexing and de-referencing of the articles.

The trial court granted interim relief, holding that continued circulation of the articles would cause irreparable harm to his reputation. This order was challenged by IE Online Media Services before the High Court.

The media house argued that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a one-year period for filing libel actions from the date of publication.

It was contended that mere continued availability of archived content does not constitute a continuing cause of action.

Rejecting this argument, the Court held that the banker's plaint contained distinct prayers, including claims founded on privacy, dignity, and the “right to be forgotten, and not just on defamation or libel.

The Court noted that the banker had approached the civil court shortly after the criminal proceedings had culminated in his favour. The Court, therefore, declined to hold that the banker's suit was barred by limitation.

The Court further relied on caselaws such as KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India,Dejo Kappan v. Deccan Herald and Rakesh Jagdish Kalra v. India Today Group, to emphasise that once an accused stands discharged or honourably acquitted, the shadow of criminal accusation cannot be allowed to follow them indefinitely.

The Court rejected the contention that adding an update informing about the discharge could sufficiently balance reputational concerns. The Court held that such a brief clarification does not necessarily neutralise the dominant narrative or continuing impact of the original publication.

“The inconvenience, if any, to the defendant is limited and reversible, whereas the prejudice to the plaintiff’s dignity, reputation and professional life is immediate and irreparable,” the Court added.

Holding that the trial court’s order was narrowly tailored and did not impose any blanket or pre-emptive restraint on journalistic activity, the High Court concluded that there was no perversity or arbitrariness to interfere with he trial court's interim order.

Accordingly, it dismissed IE's appeal.

IE Media was represented by Senior Advocate Nachiket Joshi and Advocate Chanan Parwani

The banker was represented by Senior Advocate Trideep P with Advocates S Singh, Sakshi Jain, Nitesh Kumar Jha, Akshit Mago and E Kashyap

[Read Judgment]