In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the delicate balance between freedom of speech and protection against defamation, setting a significant precedent for media platforms and journalists across the nation.
The case involved a petition for Special Leave to Appeal against an interim injunction issued by the High Court of Delhi.The petitioners, represented by a team of seasoned advocates including Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, challenged the ex-parte ad interim injunction granted by the trial judge on March 1, 2024. The injunction had directed the petitioners, a media platform and its associated individuals, to remove an article from their online platform and refrain from publishing similar content pending further hearings.
Upon hearing the case, the Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, granted leave and examined the grounds for granting interim injunctions in defamation suits. The Court emphasized the need for a nuanced approach, considering both the fundamental right to free speech and the right to reputation and privacy.
In delivering the judgment, the Court underscored the importance of ensuring that the criteria for granting interim injunctions are diligently applied, particularly in cases involving media platforms and journalists. The Court cited the three-fold test established in jurisprudence, requiring the establishment of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and demonstration of irreparable harm.
Quoting the trial judge’s words, the Court highlighted the necessity for detailed reasoning in granting interim injunctions, stating, “The court must explain how the test is satisfied and how the precedents cited apply to the facts of the case.” The judgment also referenced additional factors outlined by a three-judge bench in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, stressing the importance of exercising caution in granting ex-parte injunctions.
Furthermore, the Court invoked the ‘Bonnard standard’, derived from the landmark English case Bonnard v. Perryman, which emphasizes the need for exceptional caution in granting injunctions in defamation cases. Quoting the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Fraser v. Evans, the judgment reiterated the importance of protecting free speech and public interest even in the face of potentially defamatory content.
The Court expressed concern over the rise of Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPP) suits, emphasizing the need to prevent the abuse of legal processes to stifle free speech and public participation. It cautioned against granting ex-parte injunctions without clear evidence of malicious intent or palpable falsehoods.
In concluding the judgment, the Court set aside the orders of both the trial judge and the Single Judge of the High Court, directing a fresh assessment of the injunction application.
Case Name: BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. VS. ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Case No: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.6696/2024
Bench: Chief Justice and Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra
Order dated: 22.03.2024
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
