In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that courts should exercise caution in granting ex-parte injunctions against the publication of news articles, highlighting the potential impact on freedom of speech and public’s right to information. The apex court set aside a trial court’s order directing Bloomberg to remove an allegedly defamatory news article against Zee Entertainment, stating that such injunctions should only be granted after a full-fledged trial.
A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, stated that pre-trial injunctions could stifle public debate and freedom of speech, and should be avoided unless the content is malicious or palpably false. The court underscored that interim injunctions, particularly ex-parte, could act as a “death sentence” to the material before allegations are proven, and highlighted the potential misuse of prolonged litigation to suppress free speech.
The Supreme Court criticized the trial judge for not adequately analyzing the necessity of the ex-parte injunction and failing to consider the prima facie strength of the plaintiff’s case. The bench emphasized that the impact of such injunctions on constitutionally protected rights further warrants judicial intervention.
The court granted Zee Entertainment the liberty to approach the trial court again with its injunction request, clarifying that its ruling doesn’t comment on the merits of the case but aims to provide guidelines for hearing interim injunction applications.
Bloomberg News expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision, reaffirming its commitment to the story in question. The ruling comes after the Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s order, prompting Bloomberg to appeal to the apex court.
The case underscores the delicate balance between freedom of speech and protection against defamation, highlighting the importance of judicial scrutiny in safeguarding fundamental rights.
Read Now:Study Links Estrogen to Women’s Struggle with Nicotine Addiction
