The Delhi High Court held that an acquitted or discharged person’s right to dignity and reputation under Article 21 can override press freedom under Article 19(1)(a). The Court upheld de-indexing of arrest-related news articles, noting that continued online availability causes lasting reputational harm.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has clearly said that a person’s right to dignity and reputation can be more important than the freedom of the press, especially when old news reports continue to harm someone who has already been cleared in a criminal case.
The Court upheld a trial court order that restrained the circulation and online availability of newspaper articles about a professional banker who was arrested in a money laundering case but was later discharged.
The High Court observed that keeping such reports online even after the case ends can cause long-term damage to a person’s reputation and professional life.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha passed the order while dismissing an appeal filed by IE Online Media Services Private Limited, which runs the website indianexpress.com.
The appeal challenged an interim order of the trial court directing the media house to de-index certain articles related to the banker’s arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2023.
The banker was arrested in August 2023 in connection with alleged irregularities involving Moser Baer India Limited.
At that time, several media outlets published reports about his arrest and linked him to the alleged offence. The banker stated that he had an unblemished career of over 17 years in international banking institutions.
Later, on August 17, 2024, the jurisdictional court discharged him from the case, and the ED’s complaint was eventually dismissed. Despite this, news articles referring to his arrest continued to remain available on digital platforms and search engines.
The banker argued that these articles created a false impression that he was guilty and caused serious harm to his reputation, dignity, and future career prospects. He approached a civil court seeking injunctions, damages, and directions for de-indexing and de-referencing the articles.
The trial court granted interim relief, holding that continued circulation of such content would cause irreparable harm to his reputation.
Challenging this order, IE Online Media Services approached the Delhi High Court. The media house argued that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, which provides a one-year period to file libel-related suits from the date of publication.
It was argued that the continued availability of archived news articles does not amount to a continuing cause of action.
ALSO READ: Right To Dignity || Supreme Court Sets New Guidelines for Couples
The High Court rejected this argument and noted that the banker’s case was not based only on defamation or libel. The Court pointed out that the plaint included separate claims related to privacy, dignity, and the “right to be forgotten.”
The Court also observed that the banker approached the civil court soon after the criminal proceedings ended in his favour and therefore refused to treat the suit as time-barred.
While explaining the balance between press freedom and individual rights, the Court held 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 highlighted the serious impact of digital media by stating:
“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.”
Relying on important judgments such as K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Dejo Kappan v. Deccan Herald, and Rakesh Jagdish Kalra v. India Today Group, the Court emphasised that once a person is discharged or honourably acquitted, they should not be forced to live forever under the shadow of criminal allegations.
The High Court also rejected the argument that merely adding an update stating that the banker had been discharged would be sufficient to protect his reputation.
The Court explained that such a short clarification does not cancel out the dominant narrative created by the original arrest-related reports or their continuing impact.
While balancing the inconvenience to the media house against the harm to the individual, the Court observed:
“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 further held that the trial court’s order was carefully limited in scope and did not impose a blanket or prior restraint on journalistic work. It found no arbitrariness or perversity in the interim order passed by the trial court.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by IE Online Media Services and upheld the directions to de-index the articles relating to the banker’s arrest.
IE Online Media Services was represented by Senior Advocate Nachiket Joshi along with Advocate Chanan Parwani.
The banker was represented by Senior Advocate Trideep P, assisted by Advocates S Singh, Sakshi Jain, Nitesh Kumar Jha, Akshit Mago, and E Kashyap.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Right to Dignity
