Media & Broadcasting Lawyer

Key laws & sections

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 356 (Defamation)

  Replaces IPC 499 / 500. Criminal defamation with truth + public good as the principal defence. We defend and prosecute, but typically counsel against criminal route where civil remedy is adequate.

• Civil defamation — common law of torts

  Damages and injunctive relief through civil suits. The Bonnard v. Perryman / Khushwant Singh principles apply — interim injunction sparingly granted, particularly against media publication.

• Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 79 & IT Rules 2021

  Intermediary safe harbour and the grievance officer framework — every significant social media intermediary must appoint a Grievance Officer, Compliance Officer and Nodal Officer. We file and defend Rule 3(2) grievances.

• Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 & Programme Code

  Broadcasting compliance for TV channels — Programme Code, Advertising Code, MIB advisories and self-regulatory mechanisms.

• Code of Practice for OTT (Part III, IT Rules 2021)

  OTT content classification, age verification, grievance redressal at three levels, and the Inter-Departmental Committee oversight mechanism.

How we run the matter

1. 1
   Pre-publication review

   For publishers, OTTs and broadcasters, we review scripts, articles, episodes and ad creatives for defamation, contempt, obscenity, copyright and broadcasting-code risk before publication. Far cheaper than post-publication firefighting.

2. 2
   Takedown / notice response

   Where a client receives a Section 79 takedown notice, IT Rules grievance, or court takedown order, we respond within the statutory window — most takedowns can be resisted on intermediary safe harbour grounds where the content is user-generated.

3. 3
   Defamation — civil & criminal

   Where the client is the subject of false reporting, we serve a strong cease-and-desist with a 24-hour correction window, followed by civil suit (damages + injunction) and selective criminal complaint where the publication is reckless. For media defendants, we defend on truth + public good + fair comment.

4. 4
   Source protection & search-and-seizure defence

   Where journalists face search and seizure of unpublished material, we invoke Article 19(1)(a) source-protection arguments — limited under Indian law but increasingly recognised post the Bhima Koregaon and Foundation for Media Professionals jurisprudence.

5. 5
   OTT / broadcasting compliance

   Three-tier grievance redressal setup, annual compliance reports, and representation before the IDC where an OTT show is escalated. For TV channels, response to MIB advisories and self-regulatory body proceedings.

Why Shield for this

• Both publisher and subject side. We act for media organisations defending their reporting — and for individuals demanding retraction of false reporting. That balance keeps our drafting credible: we know which defamation suits will fail and which will succeed before we file.
• Takedown work that respects safe harbour. Recent matter for an intermediary client — court takedown order obtained ex parte against user-generated posts; we filed Section 79 / IT Rules compliance defence and the order was modified to specific URLs only, preserving the broader platform.
• OTT compliance from setup to grievance. Built three-tier grievance frameworks for OTT clients — content classification SOP, grievance officer training, IDC representation when escalations happen.
• Defamation strategy that doesn’t backfire. Many defamation suits boomerang into Streisand-effect publicity. We counsel strategic restraint where the merits are weak — a quiet retraction is often better than a noisy suit.

Questions clients ask first