2024 (5) TMI 58 - SC - Indian Laws

Direction to take down an article dated 21 February 2024 published on their online platform within a week - restraint 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 - Ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the appellants - Defamatory Article authored by Defendant Nos. 3-5 and published by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly, the grant of an interim injunction is an exercise of discretionary power and the appellate court (in this case, the High Court) will usually not interfere with the grant of interim relief. However, in a line of precedent, this Court has held that appellate courts must interfere with the grant of interim relief if the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or where the court has ignored settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. - The grant of an ex-parte interim injunction by way of an unreasoned order, definitely falls within the above formulation, necessitating interference by the High Court. 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 High Court ought to have also at least prima facie assessed whether the test for the grant of an injunction was duly established after an evaluation of facts. The same error which has been committed by the trial Judge has been 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. The three-fold test cannot merely be recorded as a mantra without looking into the facts on the basis of which an injunction has been sought. In the absence of such a consideration either by the trial Judge or by the High Court, there are no option but to set aside both the orders of the trial Judge dated 1 March 2024 and of the Single Judge of the High Court dated 14 March 2024. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Ex-parte ad interim injunction granted against a media platform and journalists for publishing an article, upheld by the High Court without proper assessment.

The judgment dealt with the ex-parte ad interim injunction granted against a media platform and journalists by the trial Judge, directing them to take down a published article and restraining them from further circulation. The trial Judge's order lacked detailed reasoning and failed to analyze the prima facie strength of the plaintiff's case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm caused. The High Court upheld this order without proper assessment, raising doubts about the maintainability of the appeal but not delving into it further. The Supreme Court emphasized that the grant of interim relief, especially in defamation cases involving journalistic pieces, should not be mechanical and must be supported by a thorough analysis of the three-fold test. The court highlighted that injunctions against media publications should be granted cautiously, considering the right to free speech and public interest. The judgment stressed the need for courts to balance the right to reputation and privacy with the freedom of expression while granting pre-trial interim injunctions. Additionally, the concept of 'SLAPP Suits' was discussed, warning against using prolonged litigation to stifle free speech and public participation. The Supreme Court set aside the trial Judge's and High Court's orders, directing a fresh assessment of the injunction application while keeping all rights and contentions of the parties open. The judgment clarified that it did not comment on the merits of the case but aimed to provide guidelines for hearing applications for interim injunctions.