DELHI, INDIA – June 10, 2025 – Underscoring journalistic accountability, a Delhi court has ordered Hindustan Times and its former reporter, Neelesh Misra, to pay ₹40 lakh in damages to businessman Arun Kumar Gupta. The defamation suit stemmed from a 2007 news report published by the newspaper, which falsely claimed Gupta had been “sacked” from a company “for alleged financial irregularities.”
District Judge Prabh Deep Kaur, presiding over the case of Arun Kumar Gupta v. HT Media Limited & Ors, directed Hindustan Times to bear 75% of the compensation (₹30 lakh), while Misra was held liable for the remaining 25% (₹10 lakh). The court further mandated the newspaper to publish an apology within 60 days and permanently restrained the publication from further defaming Gupta, the founder of Darts IT Network.
The Genesis of the Defamation Claim
The dispute originated from a news article published in January 2007 by Hindustan Times, authored by Neelesh Misra. While the article did not explicitly name Arun Kumar Gupta, it detailed an individual’s dismissal from a company due to alleged financial irregularities. This report followed a period of legal contention between Gupta and Integrix, a company he joined as Director in 2000 and from which he resigned in July 2005 to establish his own venture.
FCRF x CERT-In Roll Out National Cyber Crisis Management Course to Prepare India’s Digital Defenders
In March and April 2006, Integrix had filed two lawsuits against Gupta, alleging a defamatory email and the hacking of its website. Investigations, ordered by the Delhi High Court, subsequently traced the IP address linked to these incidents to Gupta. Despite this legal background, the court meticulously reviewed the plaints filed by Integrix and found no mention of Gupta being “sacked” or any allegations of financial irregularities against him. Crucially, the judicial records of these suits, up until the publication of the impugned article, contained no such claims.
Gupta initially sued Hindustan Times, Misra, Integrix, its directors, and even its lawyer for defamation. However, he later reached settlements with all parties except Hindustan Times and Neelesh Misra, with whom he pursued the case to its conclusion.
Court Rejects Defenses, Cites Lack of Corroboration
Hindustan Times and Misra defended the article, asserting it was based on credible information from sources and corroborated by documents, including copies of the suits filed by Integrix. They also argued that Gupta was not the subject of the story, but rather it focused on the legal status of electronic mails, published in public interest.
However, the court systematically dismantled these arguments. While acknowledging the media’s constitutional right to report on pending matters, it emphasized the absence of any evidence to support the claim that Gupta was “sacked for financial irregularities.” The court noted that neither the newspaper nor Misra disclosed the exact source of their information, nor did they provide any documents to substantiate their assertion about Gupta’s dismissal due to financial irregularities.
The argument that Gupta was not named in the article also failed to sway the court. It highlighted that witnesses examined by Gupta readily admitted their awareness of the ongoing court cases and could directly connect the news report to him. The court held that the moment witnesses questioned Gupta based on the article’s content, his reputation suffered damage. Furthermore, the court rejected the newspaper’s defense of “fair comment,” stating that reporting an individual was “sacked for alleged financial irregularities” without any supporting material amounted to “character assassination.”
Algoritha: The Most Trusted Name in BFSI Investigations and DFIR Services
Accountability and Damages: Higher Burden on the Institution
The court also dismissed the defense that no malice was involved in the reporting, ultimately finding both Hindustan Times and Neelesh Misra guilty of defamation. Consequently, Gupta was awarded ₹40 lakh in damages, though this was less than his initial claim of ₹1 crore.
In explaining the differential liability, District Judge Prabh Deep Kaur emphasized the higher responsibility of an institution like Hindustan Times compared to an individual reporter. The court stated, “An institution is always bigger than an individual person and as is said ‘higher the power, higher the responsibility’. A big institution like defendant no. 1 is supposed to have a check upon the reports/news articles prepared by an individual reporter. The institution has higher accountability because institution generally has many check posts, many barriers before the matter is reported or a task is completed.” While Misra may have reported carelessly, the court concluded that the newspaper, as a larger entity with multiple checks and balances, bore a greater burden of accountability.
The ruling serves as a stark reminder to media organizations about the critical importance of verifying facts, substantiating claims, and exercising due diligence before publishing information that can potentially harm an individual’s reputation.