Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Telangana Division Bench of Justice T. Vinod Kumar and Justice P. Sree Sudha set aside an ad-interim ex parte injunction passed by the trial court that restrained publication and circulation of alleged defamatory content against the respondent. The Bench held that the injunction order violated procedural mandates under the Code of Civil Procedure and amounted to an impermissible prior restraint. The Court directed that the order dated 02.12.2022, issued in I.A. No. 1623 of 2022 in O.S. No. 510 of 2022, was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

The appellants, who were defendants in O.S. No. 510 of 2022, challenged the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the III Additional District Judge-Cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-Principal Family Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally. The respondent No.1 in the suit had sought recovery of damages for defamation and a mandatory injunction.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Dignity In Divorce | Divorced Wife Who Remained Unmarried Entitled To Maintain Marital Standard Of Living

The respondent No.1 filed an Interlocutory Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to restrain the appellants or their agents from publishing, screening, transmitting, or otherwise circulating content that was alleged to be defamatory.

The trial court, while issuing notice to the appellants, granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction in favour of the respondent No.1 on 02.12.2022.

Aggrieved, the appellants filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeals challenging the said order. They contended that the injunction amounted to a gag order and was in violation of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. According to the appellants, such gag orders act as an unconstitutional prior restraint and infringe upon the press's right to report truth in public interest.

Further, they argued that the order violated principles of natural justice as it was passed without granting them an opportunity to be heard. The appellants also pointed out that respondent No.1 failed to disclose that it had previously filed O.S. No. 8 of 2022 seeking similar reliefs against comparable publications, which was pending adjudication before the I Additional District Judge, Khammam.

According to the appellants, the order was violative of the Constitution as pre-publication or pre-telecast injunctions do not fall within the permissible restrictions enumerated under Article 19(2). Hence, they submitted that the injunction order was liable to be set aside.

Respondent No.1 is an engineering and infrastructure company with a national and international project portfolio. It alleged that the appellants published multiple defamatory statements and reports that implicated it in political and financial scandals.

Among the alleged defamatory publications was an article dated 27.01.2022 that claimed respondent No.1 funded the wedding of a senior IAS officer's daughter and falsely associated the company with Big Wave Infra Pvt. Ltd. Another report dated 01.02.2022 published by DISHA e-magazine alleged that the company expanded nationally through quid pro quo arrangements involving election funding.

Additional reports dated 02.02.2022 published in Toli Velugu e-magazine carried photographs of the company’s managing director with a senior IAS officer, reiterating allegations of bribery and favouritism.

Further articles published on 26.04.2022 and 27.04.2022 alleged that respondent No.1 was involved in irregularities pertaining to the "Mana Ooru-Mana Badi" project.

The respondent filed O.S. No. 8 of 2022 for permanent injunction regarding these publications, but did not disclose this fact in O.S. No. 510 of 2022, where the current injunction was obtained.

Respondent No.1 claimed it had satisfied all three essential conditions for injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

The appellants, however, had not sought relief under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC before the trial court, but directly filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeals before the High Court.

The Court recorded, "any court while granting ad-interim ex parte injunction order without issuing notice to the opposite party shall record reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay."

The Court noted, "the appellants preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without availing the alternative remedy provided under Order XXXIX of C.P.C." However, it observed that the appeal could still be entertained as an exception.

Quoting the Supreme Court's decision in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, the Bench stated, "as a matter of course, the aggrieved person cannot approach the appellate or revisional Court during the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of temporary injunction... it is only when there is an inaction on the part of the Courts in following the mandate provisions, then only the aggrieved party can approach the Appellate Court."

The Bench concluded that the impugned order "is contrary to the Order XXXIX Rule 3 proviso and Rule 3A of C.P.C." and stated that it "was passed without specifying any time within which time the appellants/respondents are required to take steps to get the same vacated."

Citing Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, the Court stated the conditions under which an ex parte injunction may be granted. It reproduced the criteria including: irreparable mischief, greater injustice upon refusal, and the principle of utmost good faith.

The Court found that the order "amounts to a ‘GAG’ order" and noted, "the Courts must ensure that ‘gag’ orders are necessary, proportionate, and do not infringe upon constitutional rights."

Quoting Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, the Court observed, "unless a law restricting freedom of speech and expression is directed solely against the undermining of the security of the State or the overthrow of it, such law cannot fall within the reservation under clause (2) of Article 19."

Referring to Mohd. Zubair v. State (NCT of Delhi), it stated, "Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech... restricting him from posting on social media would amount to an unjustified violation of the freedom of speech and expression."

In Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat, the Court cited, "Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected."

Also citing Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. Ani Media Private Limited & Ors, the Court stated, "it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down."

On respondent No.1’s actions, the Court observed, "Respondent No.1 opted to file a suit for recovery of damages for defamation, rather than a Suit for defamation, which specifically addresses the defamation."

Also Read: J&K High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Of Man Accused Of Rape On False Promise Of Marriage | Quashes FIR Against Siblings For Lack Of Involvement

Finally, the Court remarked that suppression of facts relating to the earlier pending suit, O.S. No. 8 of 2022, "amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law."

The Court directed, "these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed in terms of the above observations."

It set aside the impugned order stating, "the impugned order of the trial Court dated. 02.12.2022 is set-aside. No order as to costs."

It further added, "As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri A. Chandra Sekhar, Sri T. Rajani Kanth Reddy, Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni

For the Respondents: Senior Counsel Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad appearing on behalf of Sri V. Seetha Rama Avadhani

Case Title: Spunklane Media Pvt. Ltd. v. MEIL and Ors.

Case Number: C.M.A. Nos. 22, 45 and 51 of 2023

Bench: Justice T. Vinod Kumar and Justice P. Sree Sudha

[Read/Download order]