Achi news desk-
GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court of India has ordered courts to exercise caution in granting pre-trial injunctions and stopping the publication of media articles and press articles in defamation cases, noting that this affects both the author’s right to publication and freedom of expression. with the public’s right to know.
The Supreme Court further urged the lower courts to pay attention to the trend of SLAPP (Strategic Litigation against Public Participation) according to which organizations and individuals with significant financial resources use litigation to prevent the public from knowing about their actions involving public interest.
Also Read: Delhi High Court to hear Arvind Kejriwal’s plea against ED arrest tomorrow
An SC bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra made these crucial observations in the March 22 order, in which an interim injunction directing Bloomberg to remove an article published against Zee Enterprises Ltd was dismissed. .
The court ruled in its order that the triple tests for granting temporary relief – (a) prima facie, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable loss or damage – should not be applied adversely. of the other party and in the case of injunctions against journalistic works, usually to the detriment of the public.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
"Significantly, in lawsuits concerning defamation by media platforms and/or journalists, an additional consideration of balance between the basic right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation and privacy must be kept in mind. The constitutional mandate of protecting journalistic expression cannot be underestimated, and the courts must proceed with caution while granting interim orders before trial," The court stated in its order.
The court also noted that the trial judge did not discuss, even superficially, the apparent strength of the plaintiff’s case, nor did he deal with the balance of convenience or the irreversible distress caused before the injunction was granted, and he also reprimanded. High Court of Justice for not interfering with the lower court’s order."Being a case of an injunction granted in defamation proceedings against media outlets, the effect of the injunction on the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression justified further intervention," The court determined..
