Defamation – Defamation suits against media platform and/or journalists – Interim relief/interim injunctions – Interim order by the trial judge directing the appellants-media platform, its editor, and the journalists to take down an article published on their online platform against the respondent as also restrained them from posting, circulating or publishing the article in respect of the respondent on any online or offline platform till the next date of hearing – Upheld by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: Order of the trial judge does not discuss, even cursorily, the prima facie strength of the plaintiff’s case, the balance of convenience or the irreparable hardship that is caused – Trial judge needed to have analysed why such an ex parte injunction was essential – Such order amounts to unreasoned censorship and cannot be accepted – Grant of an ex parte interim injunction by way of an unreasoned order, definitely necessitates interference by the High Court – Impact of the injunction on the constitutionally protected right of free speech further warranted intervention – High Court ought to have prima facie assessed whether the test for the grant of an injunction was duly established after an evaluation of facts – Error committed by the trial judge perpetuated by the Single Judge of the High Court – Merely recording that a prima facie case exists, that the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant of injunction and that an irreparable injury would be caused, would not amount to an application of mind to the facts of the case – In the absence thereof, orders of the trial judge and the Single Judge of the High Court set aside. [Paras 11-13]
Defamation – Defamation suits against media platform and/or journalists – Interim relief/interim injunctions – Grant of – Application of three fold test:
Held: Three-fold test is of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss or harm, for the grant of interim relief – This test is equally applicable to the grant of interim injunctions in defamation suits – Three-fold test must not be applied mechanically, 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 test is satisfied and how the precedents cited apply to the facts of the case – Also balancing the fundamental right to free speech with the 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 – Courts should not grant ex-parte injunctions except in exceptional cases where the defence advanced by the respondent would undoubtedly fail at trial – In all other cases, 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. [Paras 5, 7, 9] Suits – ‘SLAPP Suits’– Concept of :
Held: Term ‘SLAPP’ stands for ‘Strategic Litigation against Public Participation’ – It is an umbrella term used to refer to litigation predominantly initiated by entities that wield immense economic power against members of the media or civil society, to prevent the public from knowing about or participating in important affairs in the public interest – Grant of an interim injunction, before the trial commences, often acts as a ‘death sentence’ to the material sought to be published, well before the allegations have been proven – While granting ad-interim injunctions in defamation suits, the potential of using prolonged litigation to prevent free speech and public participation must also be kept in mind by courts. [Para 10]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.