The Supreme Court has dismissed an interim stay request in a petition filed by TV Today Network Ltd. (owner of Aaj Tak and India Today) seeking discharge from criminal defamation cases lodged by BJP leader Ramesh Bidhuri and his nephew Rajpal Poswal . The matter will be heard on April 13, 2026 , ahead of the trial court’s next date on April 16, 2026 . Key Developments Notice issued on the SLP challenging a Special Leave Petition filed by TV Today Network Ltd. The bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan refused an interim stay on the trial proceedings. The case stems from a 2011 news broadcast on a gang‑rape and abduction incident involving a person described as the brother‑in‑law of Bidhuri’s nephew. The Delhi High Court, in November 2025, upheld the trial court’s refusal to discharge the media house, emphasizing procedural limits of a Metropolitan Magistrate . Important Facts The broadcast criticised alleged police inaction while co‑accused were already in custody. Bidhuri and Poswal alleged the telecast was malicious, defamatory, and intended to tarnish their reputation. The Delhi High Court held that the magistrate could not invoke Section 251 of the CrPC to discharge the accused, as the case was summons‑triable and the summoning order dated 20 September 2014 remained unchallenged. The High Court also clarified that a magistrate cannot undertake a "mini‑trial" or assess defences at the pre‑evidence stage; such evaluation is reserved for later stages when evidence is led. UPSC Relevance This case highlights several constitutional and procedural aspects pertinent to GS2: Polity : Freedom of press versus individual reputation – balancing criminal defamation claims against media houses. Judicial hierarchy and the role of the Supreme Court in reviewing lower‑court decisions via SLP . Limits of magistrate powers under the CrPC , especially Section 251. Way Forward Legal experts anticipate that the Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing will address whether a corporate entity can be directly accused in a defamation case and clarify the extent of inherent powers of magistrates under Section 251. For aspirants, tracking the judgment will provide insights into media law, the balance between free speech and defamation, and procedural safeguards in criminal litigation.