The Delhi High Court has ruled that a person&rsquo;s right to dignity and reputation can take precedence over press freedom, especially when continued media coverage causes lasting harm after the person has been cleared of wrongdoing.
The court upheld a lower court order directing the removal of online news articles related to the arrest of a professional banker who was later discharged from a money laundering case. While the reports were accurate at the time of publication, the court noted that their continued availability long after the case ended created a damaging and misleading impression.
The banker had been arrested in 2023 during an investigation into alleged financial irregularities. Multiple news reports covered the arrest, linking his name to the case. However, in 2024, the court handling the matter discharged him, and the complaint itself was later dropped.
Despite this, articles mentioning his arrest continued to appear in search results and online archives. The banker argued that these reports harmed his reputation and professional standing, especially given his long career in international banking. He approached a civil court seeking relief, saying the ongoing digital presence of the articles made it appear as though he was still under suspicion.
The trial court agreed, observing that the continued circulation of the reports could cause irreversible damage. It ordered that the articles be removed from search engine listings. This decision was challenged by the media organisation that published the reports.
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court stressed that press freedom, though vital, is not absolute. The court said that when news content continues to cause disproportionate harm to someone who has been cleared, the individual&rsquo;s right to live with dignity must prevail.
The court also rejected the argument that adding a small update stating the person had been discharged would be enough. It said such clarifications do not undo the stronger impact of the original headlines or the stigma they carry.
Importantly, the court noted that the order did not amount to censorship or restrict future reporting. It was limited only to preventing lasting harm from past reports whose factual basis no longer existed.
The ruling reinforces a growing judicial view that people who are acquitted or discharged should not be forced to carry the shadow of criminal allegations indefinitely, especially in the digital age where online content can follow them for life.

Right to Dignity Can Override Press Freedom: HC

Reputation after acquittal can outweigh continued media circulation

Right to Dignity Can Override Press Freedom: HC

Reputation after acquittal can outweigh continued media circulation

December 19, 2025 | 01:41 IST