Defamation — Interim injunctions — Media platforms/journalists — Ex parte orders — Requirement of reasons
Trial court passed ex parte ad-interim injunction directing media platform to take down article and restraining further publication — Order did not analyse prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury — Mere recital of three-fold test without factual evaluation amounts to unreasoned censorship — Such order cannot be sustained — High Court erred in affirming the same.
[Paras 11–13]
Defamation — Interim relief — Three-fold test — Application in defamation suits
Three-fold test of (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and (iii) irreparable harm applies equally to defamation suits — Test must not be applied mechanically — Courts must explain how each limb is satisfied on facts — Particularly necessary where injunction restrains journalistic publication.
[Paras 5, 13]
Defamation — Media freedom — Pre-trial injunctions — Constitutional considerations
While considering injunctions against media, courts must balance right to reputation with freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) — Constitutional mandate to protect journalistic expression cannot be understated — Courts must tread with exceptional caution in granting pre-trial injunctions.
[Paras 7, 9, 12]
Defamation — Interim injunctions — Bonnard principle — Applicability
Standard laid down in Bonnard v. Perryman applicable — Pre-trial injunction should not be granted unless it is clear that defence of justification or fair comment would undoubtedly fail — Importance of leaving free speech unfettered emphasised.
[Paras 7–9]
Defamation suits — Ex parte injunctions — Exceptional circumstances
Ex parte injunctions should be granted only in exceptional cases — Particularly impermissible where publication is not shown to be palpably false or malicious — Injunctions should ordinarily be granted only after hearing the publisher or after trial.
[Paras 6, 9]
SLAPP suits — Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation — Judicial caution
Concept of SLAPP suits recognised — Powerful entities may use prolonged litigation to stifle free speech and public participation — Interim injunctions often operate as a “death sentence” to journalistic material — Courts must remain alive to this danger while granting ad-interim relief.
[Para 10]
Appellate interference — Interim orders — When warranted
Though interim injunctions are discretionary, appellate courts must interfere where discretion exercised arbitrarily or in ignorance of settled principles — Unreasoned ex parte injunction in defamation proceedings warrants interference.
[Paras 12–13]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Core Issue
Whether the trial court and the High Court were justified in granting and affirming an ex parte ad-interim injunction directing the takedown of a journalistic article and restraining its further publication.
[Paras 2, 4]
2. Nature of the Impugned Order
The trial judge directed takedown of an online article and restrained future publication by a media platform, editor, and journalists, by an ex parte order containing only a bare assertion that the three-fold test was satisfied.
[Paras 2–3, 11]
3. Failure of Judicial Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that:
The order did not assess prima facie strength of the claim,
Did not analyse balance of convenience or irreparable harm,
Merely cited precedents without applying them to facts.
Such an order amounted to unreasoned censorship.
[Paras 11–13]
4. Special Standard for Defamation Injunctions
The Court reaffirmed that defamation cases stand on a distinct footing. Pre-trial injunctions restraining speech require heightened scrutiny due to their chilling effect on free expression and public discourse.
[Paras 7, 9]
5. Bonnard Principle Applied
Relying on English and Indian precedents, the Court held that injunctions should not be granted where the defendant asserts justification or fair comment, unless such defence is bound to fail at trial.
[Paras 7–9]
6. SLAPP Suits and Chilling Effect
The Court explicitly recognised the misuse of defamation litigation to silence the press, observing that interim injunctions often destroy the value of journalistic material before adjudication.
[Para 10]
7. Error of the High Court
The High Court failed to correct the trial court’s error and merely reiterated the three-fold test without independent evaluation, thereby perpetuating the illegality.
[Paras 12–13]
8. Final Holding
Orders of the trial court and the High Court were set aside — Matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing parties — All rights and contentions kept open.
[Paras 13–14, 16]
No comments:
Post a Comment