Ex- Parte Injunction Against Publication Of Article Cannot Be Granted Unless It Is 'Malicious' Or 'Palpably False': SC Cautions About 'SLAPP' Suits In Zee Defamation Case

The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that an injunction, particularly ex-parte, against publication of article, should not be granted without establishing that the content sought to be restricted is ‘malicious’ or ‘palpably false'.

The court also cautioned against 'Strategic Litigation against Public Participation’ [SLAPP] suits. This refers to a litigation predominantly initiated by entities that wield immense economic power against members of the media or civil society, to prevent the public from knowing about or participating in important affairs in the public interest.

This observation was made while the Apex Court overturned a Trial Court's Order that directed international media giant 'Bloomberg' to remove an allegedly defamatory news article concerning Zee Entertainment. The Court was dealing with a Special Leave to Appeal filed by Bloomberg against the March 14, 2024, order of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed its appeal against the trail court order.

The Bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, also comprising of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said : "Courts should not grant ex-parte injunctions except in exceptional cases where the defence advanced by the respondent would undoubtedly fail at trial. In all other cases, injunctions against the publication of material should be granted only after a fullfledged trial is conducted or in exceptional cases, after the respondent is given a chance to make their submissions. "

It also emphasized that merely establishing a prima facie case for granting an injunction, claiming balance of convenience in favour of Zee, and alleging irreparable injury did not amount to a thoughtful application of mind in the case.

"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 Bench observed.

The Court said, that the High Court ought to have, in our view, also at least prima facie assessed whether the test for the grant of an injunction was duly established after an evaluation of facts.

The Bench ordered, "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, we have 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. We do so accordingly."

The Court granted Zee the liberty to approach the trial court afresh with its request for an injunction. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Appeal.

Earlier, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court had dismissed an Appeal filed by Bloomberg under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) against the Additional District Judge (ADJ) who granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in an application filed by Zee Entertainment.

The ADJ had issued the order based on Zee's claim of establishing a prima facie case for an injunction against the allegedly defamatory article published on February 21 by Bloomberg. Furthermore, the ADJ had emphasized that the balance of convenience favoured Zee, and failure to grant the injunction could result in irreparable loss and injury to the company.

Cause Title: Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited & Ors. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6696/2024]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Menaka Guruswamy, Advocates Rohit Kochhar, Shiv Sapra, Samiron Borkataky (AOR), Ranjeet Rohatgi, Rajat Gava, Ikshvaaku Marwah, Vishal Singh, Sanskriti Shrimali, Keshav Sehgal, Dhruv Sharma, Raghav Agarwal, Utkarsh Pratap, Lavish Bhambhani, Harshvardhan Thakur, Suvangana Agrawal,

Respondent: Advocates Mahesh Agarwal, Madhavi Agarwal, Shashwat Singh, E.C. Agrawala (AOR)

Click here to read/download Order