Defamation — Unauthorized biography — Temporary injunction — Scope at interlocutory stage
Suit seeking restraint on publication and circulation of an unauthorized biography alleging false and defamatory imputations against a public figure — Trial Court granted interim injunction restraining publication and sale — Appellate Court vacated injunction — High Court examined correctness in supervisory jurisdiction.
[Paras 1–7]
Freedom of speech and expression — Article 19(1)(a) — Right to reputation — Article 21 — Balancing of rights
Right to reputation is part of right to life under Article 21 — Freedom of speech and expression includes right to publish biographies of public figures — At interlocutory stage, Court must carefully balance competing constitutional values — Prior restraint to be granted only in exceptional cases.
[Paras 6, 31–35]
Defamation — Public figures — Higher threshold
Public figures are subject to greater degree of public scrutiny — Critical writing, fair comment, and investigative journalism cannot be interdicted merely because it is uncomfortable or unpalatable — Plaintiff must establish clear prima facie falsity and malice to justify prior restraint.
[Paras 31–35]
Unauthorized biography — Consent — Not mandatory
Writing and publication of biography of a public figure without consent per se not illegal — Consent not a prerequisite where contents are based on public records, published material, interviews, and journalistic sources — Absence of consent alone cannot justify injunction.
[Paras 22–24, 31–33]
Defamation — Book to be read as a whole
Allegedly defamatory work must be read as a whole — Isolated passages cannot be torn out of context at interim stage to impose blanket restraint — Determination of truth, falsity, and malice requires trial.
[Paras 31–35]
Temporary injunction — Prior restraint on publication — Principles
Courts must exercise extreme caution before granting injunction restraining publication — Interim gag orders have chilling effect on free speech — Unless publication is ex facie defamatory and irreparable injury is clearly established, injunction should not operate.
[Paras 6, 31–35]
Supervisory jurisdiction — Article 227 — Limited interference
High Court does not act as appellate court — Interference warranted only where subordinate court acts perversely or ignores settled principles — Appellate Court’s order vacating injunction did not warrant supervisory interference.
[Paras 6–7]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of Proceedings
The petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged appellate orders dated 28-04-2018 by which interim injunctions restraining publication and sale of the book “Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev” were vacated.
[Paras 1–7]
2. Plaintiff’s Allegations
The petitioner alleged that the book:
-
was an unauthorized biography,
-
contained false, malicious and defamatory imputations,
-
violated his right to reputation and privacy under Article 21, and
-
relied on unverified interviews, media reports and online material.
[Paras 8–30]
3. Defence of Author and Publisher
The author and publisher contended that:
-
the book was a work of investigative journalism,
-
it relied on public records, published media reports and interviews,
-
substantial material was already in public domain, and
-
the petitioner, being a public figure, could not seek prior restraint on publication.
[Paras 31–35]
4. Approach to Interim Injunction in Defamation
The High Court reiterated settled law that:
-
injunction against publication is an exceptional remedy,
-
prior restraint affects not only author and publisher but also public’s right to know, and
-
at interlocutory stage, court cannot conduct a mini-trial on truth or falsity.
[Paras 6, 31–35]
5. Public Figure Doctrine
The Court emphasised that the petitioner:
-
projected himself as a public figure with nationwide and global following,
-
actively participated in public discourse, politics, business and media, and
-
must tolerate a higher level of criticism than a private individual.
[Paras 31–35]
6. Unauthorized Biography and Consent
The Court rejected the premise that lack of consent vitiates publication, holding that biographies of public figures can be written without consent, subject to law of defamation being tested at trial.
[Paras 22–24, 31–33]
7. Reading the Book as a Whole
The Court accepted the submission that:
-
the book must be read holistically,
-
isolated passages cannot justify blanket ban, and
-
adjudication of defamatory character requires full evidence.
[Paras 31–35]
8. Final Determination
The High Court declined to interfere with the appellate orders vacating the injunction, holding that:
-
no case of exceptional prior restraint was made out, and
-
issues of truth, malice and defamation must be decided at trial.
[Paras 6–7]
Ratio Decidendi
At the interlocutory stage, courts must exercise extreme restraint in granting injunctions restraining publication of books, particularly concerning public figures. Unauthorized biographies are not per se illegal, and unless the publication is ex facie defamatory, prior restraint violates the balance between Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21. Alleged defamation must ordinarily be adjudicated after trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment