The 2024 Court of Appeal decision in Iqbal v Geo TV Ltd is a significant reaffirmation of the law relating to the defamation defences available to news and media organisations. In particular the case highlights the availability of the qualified media privilege and public interest defences in appropriate circumstances. The decision also explores what the limits of responsible journalism are in today’s fractured, multi-platform media landscape. In this article we discuss the case, which involved allegations of defamation against Urdu-language news channel Geo TV.
Iqbal v Geo TV Ltd. What Happened?
The case involved two major news broadcasters and two Pakistani political parties. The appellant, Salman Iqbal, founder of the Urdu-language ARY Digital Network, sued Geo TV Ltd over live broadcasts aired on 19th and 20th May 2022 (which were repeated in part on up to 11 subsequent news bulletins).
The broadcasts covered a highly charged political rally held by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). The rally was held in response to and against the backdrop of the removal from office of Prime Minister Imran Khan and subsequent mass protests by his supporters. Through the rally the PML-N sough to counter Mr Khan’s narrative and the call by his supporters for an early election. During the rally, one of the speakers Maryam Nawaz Sharif, daughter of former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, and niece of prime minister Shehbaz Sharif said the following:
“Imran Khan’s close friend, the owner of ARY Salman Iqbal, a gold smuggler, Imran Khan gave him the benefit of Rs 40 billion. Imran Khan waived his 10 to 12 billion rupees of taxes. Imran Khan gave him 4 billion rupees World Call without any due process. They are protecting each other because they are equal partners in the theft.”
Mr Iqbal claimed these statements were false and defamatory, therefore damaging to his reputation.
High Court Decision
The High Court dismissed Geo TV’s application for summary judgment. It ruled that Mr Iqbal’s claim against Geo TV had a realistic chance of success. Furthermore, the Court found that there were some substantial issues that would need to be disputed with a full trial – the issues being public interest, fair reporting and malice.
Geo TV appealed, arguing that summary judgment should have been granted.
Court of Appeal Decision
In a substantial judgment Lord Justice Warby overturned the High Court ruling, granting summary judgment in favour of Geo TV. The Court’s main findings were:
Qualified Privilege Applied
The Court confirmed that the rally did meet the criteria set out in the legal definition of a public meeting. Geo TV’s broadcasts were fair and accurate reports protected under Section 15(1) of the Defamation Act 1996.
No Evidence of Malice
To defeat qualified privilege, a claimant (here, the appellant Mr Iqbal) must prove malice. Did he establish that Geo TV knew the allegations were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The Court ruled that:
- There was no evidence showing Geo TV had actual knowledge of falsity
- Geo TV’s journalistic practice was standard for news reporting
- Mr Iqbal’s mere allegation that Geo TV should have known the statements made at the rally were false was insufficient.
Defamation Act, 1996 s15(3) Did Not Block Privilege
The Court clarified that:
- Reports of political speeches inherently serve the public interest
- The High Court wrongly treated public benefit as a balancing test
- Limiting reports on major political events would undermine press freedom
Summary Judgment Was Appropriate
The law recognises that there are occasions on which a person should, as a matter of public interest, be free to publish defamatory statements without fear of incurring liability – provided they do so without malice. An organisation such as Geo TV that proves that the statement complained of was made on such an occasion will be immune from liability unless the claimant proves that the statement was malicious. Here, no such malice had been shown and qualified privilege applied. The case had no real prospect of success, and summary judgment was appropriate.
Comment
This ruling strengthens press freedom and reinforces that:
- News reports of public meetings are legally protected if fair and accurate
- Malice requires clear evidence of subjective intent to publish falsehoods
In our view Iqbal v Geo TV Ltd is a crucial case for defamation law and offers protection for media reporting. As Warby LJ emphasised:
“The dissemination of fair, accurate, and thorough reports of what one side has said about the other at a public meeting in the context of a fast-moving electoral or political contest is generally for the public benefit. Strong reasons would be needed to justify a conclusion that the public interest required the reporter to engage in some form of censorship or editing of defamatory content”.
Finally the case reinforces the difficulty of overcoming qualified privilege in defamation claims and upholds the importance of free press, particularly in politics.
In January 2025 Mr Iqbal obtained permission to appeal the summary judgment decision to the Supreme Court. We await the outcome of these future proceedings eagerly.
Contact Nath Solicitors
At Nath Solicitors we are specialists in defamation law and can provide specialist legal advice and representation. If you need assistance on a defamation matter or require guidance for complex legal disputes, please contact us at 44 (0) 203 983 8278 or get in touch with the firm online.
