The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi): The Supreme Court of India has set aside an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by a trial court and upheld by the Delhi High Court against Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited and others in a defamation case filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited. The apex court held that the orders of the lower courts lacked proper reasoning and failed to adequately consider the impact on the constitutionally protected right to free speech.
The case arose from an article published on February 21, 2024, by the appellants, a media platform, one of its editors, and concerned journalists, about the respondent company. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited approached the trial court, seeking an injunction against the publication of the article, alleging that it was defamatory in nature.
On March 1, 2024, the Additional District Judge (ADJ) 05 of the South Saket Courts, New Delhi, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction directing the appellants to take down the article within a week and restraining them from posting, circulating, or publishing the article on any online or offline platform until the next hearing date. The order was subsequently upheld by a single judge of the Delhi High Court on March 14, 2024.
Aggrieved by the decisions of the lower courts, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, challenging the ex-parte interim injunction. The apex court, in its order, emphasized the need for courts to provide detailed reasons and analyze the three-fold test of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss or harm while granting interim relief, particularly in cases involving injunctions against journalistic pieces.
The Supreme Court noted that the trial court’s order merely stated that the court had gone through the available record and noticed certain precedents where ad-interim injunctions were granted, without dwelling on the merits of the plaint. The court observed that such an unreasoned order amounted to censorship and could not be countenanced.
The apex court also highlighted the importance of balancing the fundamental right to free speech with the right to reputation and privacy in defamation suits involving media platforms and journalists. It cautioned that courts must tread cautiously while granting pre-trial interim injunctions, as they can have severe ramifications on the right to freedom of speech and the public’s right to know.
Drawing from the ‘Bonnard standard’ established by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, the Supreme Court held that an injunction, particularly an ex-parte one, should not be granted without establishing that the content sought to be restricted is ‘malicious’ or ‘palpably false’. The court emphasized that granting interim injunctions in a cavalier manner before the commencement of a trial could result in the stifling of public debate.
The Supreme Court also recognized the concept of ‘SLAPP suits’ (Strategic Litigation against Public Participation), which are initiated by powerful entities to prevent the public from knowing about or participating in important affairs of public interest. The court stressed the need for courts to be cognizant of the potential misuse of prolonged litigation to curb free speech and public participation.
Finding fault with the orders of the trial court and the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court observed that both courts had failed to assess the prima facie strength of the plaintiff’s case and had not adequately addressed the balance of convenience or the irreparable hardship caused by the injunction. The apex court held that the mere recording of the three-fold test without looking into the facts of the case did not amount to an application of mind.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and the high court, directing the trial court to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties and considering the observations made in the judgment. The court clarified that its observations should not be construed as a comment on the merits of the case and that all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Supreme Court’s judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications for defamation cases involving media platforms and journalists, emphasizing the need for courts to carefully balance the right to free speech with the right to reputation and to provide well-reasoned orders while granting interim injunctions. The ruling also highlights the importance of safeguarding public debate and preventing the misuse of legal proceedings to silence critical voices.