In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has sounded a clarion call for prudence in granting pre-trial injunctions against media publications. Emphasizing the paramount importance of safeguarding freedom of speech, the Court urged trial courts to exercise caution, recognizing the potential chilling effect such injunctions could have on both authors and the public’s right to information.
Highlighting the concerning trend of Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPP), wherein powerful entities exploit litigation to stifle public discourse, the Court underscored the need for a delicate balance between protecting reputation and upholding the constitutional mandate of journalistic expression.
The Court emphasized that pre-trial injunctions should be exceptional, issued only when the content is demonstrably malicious or palpably false. Stressing the grave repercussions of hasty injunctions, particularly ex-parte, the Court cautioned against stifling public debate and called for a robust trial process before restricting publication.
Moreover, the Court recognized the danger of prolonged litigation being used as a weapon to suppress free speech, urging appellate courts to intervene when interim injunctions are granted arbitrarily or in disregard of established legal principles.
In a specific case involving Bloomberg and Zee Enterprises Ltd., the Court set aside an interim injunction order, criticizing the trial judge for failing to adequately assess the strength of the plaintiff’s case or consider the broader implications on free speech.
This decision reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the foundational principles of democracy and serves as a bulwark against attempts to muzzle the press or curtail public participation in matters of significant public interest.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
