The Apex Court in the present case discussed the ramifications of the right to freedom of speech of the author and the public’s right to know in a pre-trial injunction granted against the publication of an article. The present case is a special leave to appeal against the decision of the Delhi High Court upholding the ex-parte ad interim order of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), South Saket Courts directing Bloomberg Television Production India Private Limited (“Bloomberg”) to take down an article allegedly against the Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (“Zee”). Further, Bloomberg was also restrained from posting, circulating or publishing the article in respect of Zee on any online or offline platform till the next date of hearing.
The Court relied on the well-established three-fold test for granting an interim relief which is (i) a prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; and (iii) irreparable loss or harm. Furthermore, the Court stated that in suits concerning defamation by media platforms and/or journalists, an additional consideration of balancing the fundamental right to free speech with the right to reputation and privacy must be borne in mind. The Court said that the constitutional mandate of protecting journalistic expression cannot be understated, and Courts must tread cautiously while granting pre-trial interim injunctions. The Court said that the ‘Bonnard standard’, laid down in Bonnard v. Perryman must be followed while granting of interim injunctions in defamation suits.
The Court held that an ex-parte injunction should not be granted without establishing that the contents sought to be restricted are ‘malicious’ or ‘palpably false’. The Court stated that Injunctions against the publication of material should be granted only after a full-fledged trial is conducted or in exceptional cases, after the Respondent is given a chance to make their submissions. The Court further stated that the grant of an interim injunction, before the trial, often acts as a ‘death sentence’ to the material sought to be published and hence the court should be mindful before granting such injunctions.
The Apex court held that neither had the Trial Court considered the merits of the Plaintiff’s case, nor did it deal with balance of convenience or irreparable hardship caused. The Trial Court also did not analyze as to why such an ex-parte injunction was essential. The High Court had mechanically upheld the order without assessing whether the three-fold test was correctly implemented. Hence the Apex Court set aside the orders of the lower courts.