1988 (9) TMI 340 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there is need for the continuance of the Order of injunction passed by this Court on 25th August 1988? Held that - As the Issue is not going to affect the general public or public life nor any injury is involved it would be proper and legal on an appraisal of the balance of convenience between the risk which will be caused by the publication of the article and the damage to the fundamental right of freedom of knowledge of the people concerned and the obligation of Press to keep people informed that the injunction should not continue any further. In the aforesaid view of the matter we direct that there is no further need for the continuance of the injunction. Publications if any however would be subject to the decision of the Court on the question of the contempt of court namely prejudging the issue and thereby interfering with the due administration of justice. Preventive remedy in the form of an injunction is no longer necessary. Whether punitive remedy will be available or not. will depend upon tacts and the decision of the matter after ascertaining the consent or refusal of the Attorney-General. The application for the present purpose is therefore. disposed of with the direction that the injunction against publication in the order dated 25th August 1988 need not further continue.

Issues Involved:
1. Continuance of the order of injunction.
2. Alleged contempt of court by respondents.
3. Balance between freedom of the press and administration of justice.
4. Validity of the debenture issue and related consents and approvals.
5. Potential impact on public interest and the petitioner's business.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Continuance of the Order of Injunction:
The Supreme Court deliberated on whether the injunction order passed on 25th August 1988 should continue. The injunction restrained the Indian Express Group from publishing materials related to the debenture issue of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. The Court considered the necessity of this injunction in light of the claim that the publication could affect the debenture issue, which had already been oversubscribed. The Court concluded that since the subscription period had closed and the debentures were oversubscribed, there was no imminent danger of the subscription being withdrawn. Thus, the balance of convenience did not necessitate the continuance of the injunction.

2. Alleged Contempt of Court by Respondents:
The petition claimed that the respondents committed contempt by publishing an article that questioned the legality of consents and approvals for the debenture issue, which was sub-judice. The Court noted that the contempt petition would only be considered after obtaining the Attorney General's sanction. The Court emphasized that the publication of the article did not violate the existing injunction and did not question the legality or validity of the consents in issue. The decision on whether the respondents committed contempt would be addressed separately when the contempt application is taken up.

3. Balance Between Freedom of the Press and Administration of Justice:
The Court had to balance the freedom of the press with the need for unimpaired administration of justice. The Court recognized the importance of both interests, citing various legal precedents. It was noted that while freedom of speech is paramount, it must be balanced against the need to ensure fair trials and prevent interference with judicial proceedings. The Court referred to the principles laid out in several cases, including those from the U.S. and U.K., emphasizing that any publication that interferes with the due administration of justice could be restrained.

4. Validity of the Debenture Issue and Related Consents and Approvals:
The Court examined the validity of the debenture issue and the consents and approvals obtained by Reliance Petrochemicals. The petitioner argued that the debenture issue had been legally approved and that any publication questioning this could harm the issue. The Court observed that the interim orders were issued to prevent any legal impediment to the debenture issue. However, the Court clarified that its earlier orders did not imply a prima facie conclusion on the validity of the consents but were aimed at preventing irreparable harm to the petitioner due to potential stay orders from other courts.

5. Potential Impact on Public Interest and the Petitioner's Business:
The petitioner expressed concern that continued publication of articles questioning the debenture issue's validity could lead to a withdrawal of subscriptions and harm the company's interests. The Court acknowledged this concern but concluded that with the subscription period closed and the issue oversubscribed, the risk of significant harm was minimal. The Court emphasized the right of the public to be informed and the press's obligation to provide information, stating that preventive injunctions should only be based on reasonable grounds to keep the administration of justice unimpaired.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court directed that the injunction against publication should not continue further. The Court allowed the publication of articles, subject to the decision on the contempt of court issue. The Court emphasized that preventive remedies in the form of injunctions were no longer necessary, and any publication would be at the respondents' risk, subject to potential punitive action for contempt or defamation. The application for the continuance of the injunction was disposed of, and the interim order dated 25th August 1988 was vacated.

← Previous Next →