9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (page 84 to 86 of the plaintiff s document) from online platform within one week of receipt of this order. The defendants are further restrained from posting, circulating or publishing the aforesaid article in respect of the plaintiff on any online or offline platform till the next date of hearing. 4. The order of the trial Judge has been upheld by a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi by order dated 14 March 2024. [ Impugned Order ] The Single Judge of the High Court seems to have had doubts about the maintainability of the appeal, but that point need not be laboured any further having regard to the provisions of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 5. The three-fold test of establishing (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable loss or harm, for the grant of interim relief, is well-established in the jurisprudence of this Court. This test is equally applicable to the grant of interim injunctions in defamation suits. However, this three-fold test must not be applied mechanically, [Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622, para 38.] to the detriment of the other party and in the case of injunc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd and Wales), has acquired the status of a common law principle for the grant of interim injunctions in defamation suits [ Holley vs. Smyth, (1998) 1 All ER 853.] . The Court of Appeal in Bonnard (supra) held as follows: But it is obvious that the subject-matter of an action for defamation is so special as to require exceptional caution in exercising the jurisdiction to interfere by injunction before the trial of an action to prevent an anticipated wrong. The right of free speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should possess, and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment, so long as no wrongful act is done; and, unless an alleged libel is untrue, there is no wrong committed; but, on the contrary, often a very wholesome act is performed in the publication and repetition of an alleged libel. Until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at all has been infringed; and the importance of leaving free speech unfettered is a strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of interim injunctions. (emphasis supplied) 8. In Fraser v. Evans [1969] 1 Q.B. 349., the Court of Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en 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. 11. The order of the trial Judge does not discuss, even cursorily, 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. The trial Judge merely states, in paras 7-8, that the court has gone through the record available as on date and noticed certain precedents where an ad-interim injunction was granted. Without even cursorily dwelling on the merits of the plaint, the ad-interim injunction granted by the trial Judge amounts to unreasoned censorship which cannot be countenanced. 12. 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, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
