The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining continued online circulation of news reports linking a banker to criminal allegations after his discharge and exoneration. The Court held that persistent digital availability of such reports violated the individual’s right to privacy, dignity, and the “right to be forgotten” under Article 21, outweighing press freedom in the circumstances.

Legal Issue

Whether continued online availability of news reports associating an individual with criminal allegations, despite his discharge and exoneration, violates his right to privacy, dignity, and the “right to be forgotten” under Article 21, and whether interim injunction restraining circulation of such content was justified

Brief Facts

Nitin Bhatnagar, a banker with seventeen years of professional experience, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in August 2023 in connection with alleged irregularities relating to Moser Baer India Ltd. Several media houses, including IE Online Media Services, reported his arrest. In August 2024, the trial court discharged him, finding no evidence linking him to the offence, and by July 2025 the entire case was dismissed.

Despite exoneration, the news articles remained accessible online, perpetuating stigma and reputational harm. Bhatnagar filed a civil suit in October 2025 seeking injunctions, damages, and directions for de-indexing and de-referencing of the articles. The trial court granted interim relief, holding that continued circulation of the reports caused irreparable harm to his reputation.

IE Online Media Services appealed, arguing that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 75 of the Limitation Act (one year for libel), that the reports were fair and accurate reporting protected by qualified privilege, and that the “right to be forgotten” cannot rewrite history or override press freedom. They contended that updates reflecting his discharge had already been added, and that balance of convenience lay with the press and public’s right to know.

The plaintiff countered that his prayers were based not only on defamation but also on privacy and dignity, which are independent constitutional rights. He relied on K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), Kerala HC’s Dejo Kappan v. Deccan Herald (2024), and Delhi HC’s Jorawer Singh Mundy (2021), to argue that once exonerated, continued digital dissemination of adverse material violates Article 21. He emphasized that updates did not neutralize the dominant narrative of the original reports.

Judgment 

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s interim order. Justice Sudha held that limitation under Article 75 applies to defamation claims but not to reliefs premised on privacy and the right to be forgotten, which are governed by laches. Since the plaintiff approached the court soon after exoneration, the suit was not barred.

On balancing rights, the Court reiterated that while press freedom under Article 19(1)(a) is vital, it is not absolute and must yield to an individual’s dignity under Article 21 in appropriate cases. Continued online availability of reports associating the plaintiff with criminal allegations, despite his discharge, caused disproportionate harm. The Court noted that mere addition of brief clarifications did not undo reputational damage.

The Court emphasized constitutional proportionality: inconvenience to the press was limited and reversible, whereas prejudice to the plaintiff’s dignity and career was immediate and irreparable. The interim relief was narrowly tailored, confined to specific articles, and did not impose a blanket restraint on journalistic activity. The judgement clarifies that the “right to be forgotten” can operate independently of defamation claims, not subject to strict limitation periods. It reinforces that Article 21’s right to dignity and privacy can outweigh Article 19(1)(a) in cases of continued digital stigma after exoneration. It strengthens jurisprudence by recognizing that updates or clarifications are insufficient to neutralize reputational harm, and courts may grant interim relief to protect dignity even against archival content.

Access the official judgement/order here

Case Name

IE Online Media Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Nitin Bhatnagar & Ors.

Neutral Citation

2025:DHC:11501

Date

18 December 2025 (Judgment reserved on 15 December 2025)

Bench

Hon’ble Ms. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
(Delhi High Court, Single Judge)