Introduction:

In Heritage Foods Limited v. Jagati Publications Limited & Ors. (CS(OS) 162/2026), the Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Heritage Foods Limited, a Hyderabad-based dairy company, in a defamation suit filed against a media house, a television channel, and various digital platforms. The matter was heard by Justice Mini Pushkarna, who found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.

The suit arose out of a series of newspaper reports, televised discussions, and online publications allegedly linking Heritage Foods to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) ghee adulteration controversy. The controversy relates to allegations that adulterated ghee was used in the preparation of laddus distributed as prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple, one of the most revered pilgrimage sites in India.

Heritage Foods approached the Court contending that the defendants had falsely and recklessly associated it with the alleged scam by drawing misleading inferences based on similarity in names between it and another entity accused in the matter. According to the company, such publications were not only factually incorrect but had caused severe reputational damage.

After examining the pleadings and submissions, the Court restrained the defendants from publishing or continuing to host the impugned reports and directed the takedown of articles containing identical or similar statements. Summons were also issued in the main suit, with the matter listed for further hearing on July 9.

Background of the Dispute:

The dispute is rooted in allegations surrounding the supply of adulterated ghee allegedly used for preparing laddus offered as prasadam at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple. Given the religious, cultural, and emotional significance attached to the temple and its prasadam, the controversy attracted widespread media coverage.

The plaintiffs asserted that certain media outlets published reports on February 14 suggesting a connection between Heritage Foods and the alleged adulteration scandal. According to the plaintiff, these publications implied that the company had supplied adulterated ghee to the Tirupati temple authorities.

However, Heritage Foods maintained that it had no business relationship whatsoever with the entity accused in the alleged TTD ghee scam. The company claimed that the linkage was created merely by exploiting similarity in names, thereby misleading readers and viewers into believing that it was involved in the controversy.

Arguments on Behalf of the Plaintiff:

Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi and Anurag Ahluwalia, along with the legal team representing the plaintiff, advanced several arguments before the Court.

1. False Association and Name Similarity

The primary grievance of the plaintiff was that the defendants had falsely associated Heritage Foods with the alleged scam by exploiting similarity in names. It was contended that the reports created a misleading narrative, suggesting involvement without verifying the factual position.

The plaintiff argued that in matters involving criminal allegations and public scandal, especially one touching upon religious sentiments, the media has a heightened duty of care to verify facts before publication.

2. Absence from FIRs and Charge Sheets

It was pointed out that neither Heritage Foods nor any of its business associates were named in any FIRs, charge sheets, or official investigation records relating to the alleged adulteration.

Publicly available documents did not indicate any connection between the company and the alleged accused entity. Despite this, the defendants allegedly proceeded to publish reports linking the company to the controversy.

3. Reckless Disregard for Truth

The plaintiff submitted that the impugned publications were issued with “reckless disregard for the truth.” This, it was argued, satisfied the threshold for defamation and justified interim relief.

Given the speed and reach of digital media, such publications could cause irreparable harm within a short span of time.

4. Reputational Harm and Irreparable Injury

Heritage Foods emphasized that as a dairy company operating in a competitive market, its brand reputation and consumer trust are its most valuable assets.

Allegations linking it to adulteration of ghee used in temple prasadam could severely damage its goodwill, investor confidence, and business prospects.

The plaintiff contended that monetary damages would not adequately compensate the reputational injury suffered.

5. Balance of Convenience

The plaintiff argued that the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting interim protection.

Restraining the defendants from continuing to publish allegedly defamatory material would not prejudice them, whereas denial of relief would allow ongoing reputational harm to the plaintiff.

Arguments on Behalf of the Defendants:

The detailed defence is yet to be fully recorded in the public domain, but it can be inferred that the defendants likely relied on the following lines of argument.

1. Freedom of the Press

The defendants may have invoked the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, asserting the media’s role in reporting matters of public interest.

The alleged adulteration of ghee used in temple prasadam is undoubtedly a matter of public concern, justifying journalistic scrutiny.

2. Fair Reporting

The defendants may have contended that their reports were based on available information and did not maliciously target the plaintiff.

They could argue that reporting on developments in a public scandal, even if it involves entities with similar names, falls within the ambit of fair reportage.

3. Absence of Malice

Another likely argument would be absence of malice or deliberate intent to defame.

The defendants might assert that any confusion arising from similarity in names was inadvertent and not intended to cause reputational harm.

4. Premature Injunction

The defendants may have argued that granting interim injunction in defamation matters requires strict scrutiny, as such orders have a chilling effect on free speech.

Courts have traditionally exercised caution before restraining publication.

Court’s Analysis and Findings:

Justice Mini Pushkarna evaluated the competing claims at the interim stage.

1. Prima Facie Case

The Court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case.

The fact that the company was not named in any FIRs or charge sheets relating to the alleged scam weighed significantly in its favour.

The apparent absence of any direct link between Heritage Foods and the accused entity suggested that the publications may have created a misleading association.

2. Balance of Convenience

The Court found that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff.

If the impugned reports were allowed to remain accessible, the plaintiff could continue to suffer reputational harm.

On the other hand, restraining publication pending adjudication would not cause disproportionate prejudice to the defendants.

3. Irreparable Harm

The Court implicitly acknowledged that reputational injury in the digital age spreads rapidly and may be difficult to undo.

Given the gravity of allegations involving adulteration of temple prasadam, the potential for lasting reputational damage was considerable.

4. Interim Restraint Order

The Court restrained the defendants from:

Publishing the impugned articles and reports.

Continuing to host the impugned content.

Publishing any identical or similar statements linking the plaintiff to the alleged TTD ghee adulteration.

Summons were issued in the main suit, and the matter was listed for further hearing on July 9.