The Supreme Court of India stayed Centre's fact-checking unit.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said the grant of a pre-trial injunction against the publication of an article may have severe ramifications on the right to freedom of speech of the author and the right to know of the public.
It asked the courts to tread cautiously while granting pre-trial interim injunctions keeping in mind the constitutional mandate of protecting journalistic expression.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said an injunction, particularly ex-parte, should not be granted without establishing that the content sought to be restricted is ‘malicious’ or ‘palpably false’.
"Granting interim injunctions, before the trial commences, in a cavalier manner results in the stifling of public debate. In other words, courts should not grant ex-parte injunctions except in exceptional cases where the defence advanced by the respondent would undoubtedly fail at trial," the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said.
The apex court recently set aside the Delhi High Court's order of March 14, 2024, which had upheld the trial court's order directing Bloomberg to take down an article posted online on February 21, 2024 within a week on a plea by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited.
The bench emphasised the three-fold test of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss or harm, for the grant of interim relief.
"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 bench said.
In the instant case, the bench said the trial judge does not discuss, even cursorily, the prima facie strength of the plaintiff’s case, nor does it deal with the balance of convenience or the irreparable hardship that is caused. The trial judge needed to have analysed why such an ex parte injunction was essential, it said.
The single judge of the High Court perpetuated the error by declining to interfere with the order, the court said.
The court asked the trial court to take a fresh look into the matter after hearing both the parties.
In suits concerning defamation by media platforms and 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 bench underscored.