Pre-trial injunction against news threatens freedom of speech: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that courts should refrain from granting ex-parte injunctions against news article publication except in exceptional circumstances, as it could significantly impact both the author’s freedom of speech and the public’s right to information. In a recent ruling, the Court overturned a trial court’s decision that directed international media giant Bloomberg to remove a purportedly defamatory news piece about Zee Entertainment. The apex court stated that injunctions on publication should only be issued following a thorough trial process.

“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 public’s right to know,” a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said.

The bench, also comprising Justices Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, 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 said.

The SC said 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,” it said.

The top court was hearing a plea filed by Bloomberg against the March 14 order of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed its appeal against the trail court order.The apex court said the error committed by the trial judge had been perpetuated by the high court and the order of the trial judge does not discuss 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, after setting out the factual basis and the contentions of the respondent made before the trial judge, it said. This being a case of an injunction granted in defamation proceedings against a media platform, the impact of the injunction on the constitutionally protected right of free speech further warranted intervention, the bench added.