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.
The Apex Court in the present case highlighted the importance of para-wise reply to Plaint, and further stated that a general or evasive denial would not be sufficient. The matter was pertaining to the genuineness of a registered Will executed by the testator in favour of his brother’s daughter without any mention of his widow or daughter in the same. After considering the evidence, the Court did not find any error in the High Court’s decision holding the Will genuine.
The Hon’ble Court highlighted that the Plaint filed by the Respondent in the instant matter contained 10 paragraphs besides prayer, while the written statement filed by the Appellants did not contain a para-wise reply but depicted their own story containing 15 paragraphs besides prayer. The Court expressed that “in the absence of para-wise reply to the Plaint, it becomes a roving inquiry for the Court to find out as to which line in some paragraph in the Plaint is either admitted or denied in the written statement filed, as there is no specific admission or denial with reference to the allegation in different paras.”
The Apex Court made reference to Court referred to Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 regarding specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the Plaint. Further, the Court placed reliance on Badat and Co. v. East India Trading Co., and Lohia Properties (P) Ltd. v. Atmaram Kumar and clarified that a general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient and it further added that “In the absence thereof, the Respondent can always try to read one line from one paragraph and another from different paragraph in the Written Statement to make out his case of denial of the allegations in the Plaint resulting in utter confusion .”
Consequently, the Hon’ble Court re-affirmed these already well-established position that the allegations made in the Plaint are deemed to be admitted unless the same has been specifically denied in the Para-wise reply of the Plaint.