Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4602 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6696 of 2024)
Decided On : 22-03-2024
(A) Injunction – Grant of – Three-fold test of establishing (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable loss or harm, for grant of interim relief, is well-established in jurisprudence of this Court – This test is equally applicable to grant of interim injunctions in defamation suits – While granting interim relief, court must provide detailed reasons and analyze how three-fold test is satisfied – A cursory reproduction of submissions and precedents before court is not sufficient – Court must explain how test is satisfied and how precedents cited apply to facts of the case – In suits concerning defamation by media platforms and/or journalists, additional consideration of balancing fundamental right to free speech with right to reputation and privacy must be borne in mind – Constitutional mandate of protecting journalistic expression cannot be understated and courts must tread cautiously while granting pre-trial interim injunctions. (Paras 5 and 7)
(B) Injunction – Grant of – In essence, grant of a pre-trial injunction against publication of an article may have severe ramifications on right to freedom of speech of author and public’s right to know – An injunction, particularly ex-parte, should not be granted without establishing that content sought to be restricted is malicious or palpably false – Courts should not grant ex-parte injunctions except in exceptional cases where defence advanced by respondent would undoubtedly fail at trial – In all other cases, injunctions against publication of material should be granted only after a full-fledged trial is conducted or in exceptional cases, after respondent is given a chance to make their submissions – While granting ad-interim injunctions in defamation suits, potential of using prolonged litigation to prevent free speech and public participation must also be kept in mind by courts. (Paras 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
On 01 March 2024, an ex-parte ad interim order was passed by Trial Judge directing appellants (a media platform, one of its editors, and the concerned journalists) to take down an article dated 21 February 2024 published on their online platform within a week. Appellants were also restrained from posting, circulating or publishing the article in respect of the respondent-plaintiff on any online or offline platform till the next date of hearing.
Findings of Court:
It would be open to respondents to renew their application for injunction, on which Trial Judge shall pass fresh orders after hearing parties and bearing in mind the observations which are contained in the above segment of judgment and order. All the rights and contentions of parties are kept open in that regard. In the event that appellants seek to contest application for injunction, they shall file their reply before the trial Judge before the next date of listing.
Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.
1. Leave granted.
2. On 01 March 2024, an ex-parte ad interim order was passed by the ADJ 05 of the South Saket Courts, New Delhi,1[“trial Judge”] directing the appellants (a media platform, one of its editors, and the concerned journalists) to take down an article dated 21 February 2024 published on their online platform within a week. The appellants were also restrained from posting, circulating or publishing the article in respect of the respondent-plaintiff on any online or offline platform till the next date of hearing.
3. The order of the trial Judge indicates that the discussion, after recording the submission of the respondent, commences at paragraph 7. The only reasoning which is found in the order of the trial Judge is in paragraphs 8-9, which read as follows:
9. In my view, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for passing ad interim ex-parte orders of injunction, balance of convenience is also in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and irreparable loss and injury may be caused to the plaintiff, if the injunction as prayed for is not granted. In view thereof, defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 are directed to take down the article dated 21.02.2024 (page 84 to 86 of the plaintiff’s document) from online platform within one week of receipt of this order. The defendants are further restrained from posting, circulating or publishing the aforesaid article in respect of the plaintiff on any online or offline platform till the next date of hearing.”
4. The order of the trial Judge has been upheld by a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi by order dated 14 March 2024.,2[“Impugned Order”] The Single Judge of the High Court seems to have had doubts about the maintainability of the appeal, but that point need not be laboured any further having regard to the provisions of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
5. The three-fold test of establishing (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable loss or harm, for the grant of interim relief, is well-established in the jurisprudence of this Court. This test is equally applicable to the grant of interim injunctions in defamation suits. However, this three-fold test must not be applied mechanically,3[Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622, para 38.] to the detriment of the other party and in the case of injunctions against journalistic pieces, often to the detriment of the public. While granting interim relief, the court must provide detailed reasons and analyze how the three-fold test is satisfied. A cursory reproduction of the submissions and precedents before the court is not sufficient. The court must explain how the test is satisfied and how the precedents cited apply to the facts of the case.
6. In addition to this oft-repeated test, there are also additional factors, which must weigh with courts while granting an ex-parte ad interim injunction. Some of these factors were elucidated by a three-judge bench of this Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225 in the following terms:
(a) whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;
(b) whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;
(c) the court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained so that the making of improper order against a party in his absence is prevented;
(d) the court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for so
Injunction – While granting ad-interim injunctions in defamation suits, potential of using prolonged litigation to prevent free speech and public participation must also be kept in mind by courts.
Interim injunctions must meet the triple test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; ex-parte orders are justified in defamation cases where urgent protection is needed.
The right to privacy in matrimonial matters is protected under Article 21, and courts must carefully balance this right against freedom of expression when considering interim injunctions in defamatio....
The court ruled that the right to freedom of speech takes precedence over defamation claims unless a strong prima facie case is established, underscoring the necessity to balance fundamental rights.
The court applied the 'Triple Test' for grant of injunctions and found that the respondent had made out a prima facie case for the injunction.
Gag orders infringing freedom of speech must meet strict constitutional standards; procedural violations in granting injunctions render such orders impermissible.
The duty of the media to substantiate its stand with evidence and the restriction of freedom of expression by the law of defamation.
The trial Court must provide a reasoned order on temporary injunction applications, particularly when delay could cause irreparable harm to a party's reputation or rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
