22 March 2024 Defamation >> Criminal Law   |   Technology Media & Telecommunications >> Media  

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment in favor of media freedom, vacating an ex-parte ad interim injunction order that compelled a media platform (hereinafter "Appellants") to remove a published article. The Respondent, who was the subject of the article, had initiated defamation proceedings and secured the aforementioned injunction on March 1, 2024, effectively silencing the media platform without affording them a chance to be heard. While the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court intervened, highlighting critical flaws in the grant of the injunction.

Lower Courts Erred in Applying Legal Standards:

The Supreme Court's judgment meticulously dissected the errors committed by the lower courts. The crux of the issue lay in the failure to properly apply established legal principles governing the grant of injunctions in defamation suits. The Court emphasized the inherent power wielded by injunctions, their ability to curtail speech before a trial even commences. Given this potential "chilling effect" on free speech, the Court underscored the need for stricter standards when media publications are involved in defamation cases.

Stricter Scrutiny: Three-Fold Test and Bonnard Standard:

The Court identified two crucial legal standards that were inadequately addressed by the lower courts:

• Three-Fold Test: The party seeking the injunction (the Respondent in this case) has the burden of establishing a prima facie case, demonstrating a strong likelihood of success at trial. Additionally, they must establish that the balance of convenience tips in their favor – the potential harm outweighs the benefit of allowing publication. Finally, they must prove that they would suffer irreparable harm if the article remains published.
• Bonnard Standard: Injunctions should not be granted unless the media platform's defense (e.g., truth or fair comment) has no realistic prospect of success in court.

Addressing the Specter of SLAPP Suits:

The Court further acknowledged the growing concern surrounding Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP suits). These lawsuits, often employed by powerful entities, are strategically filed to silence critics and stifle investigative journalism. By draining resources and delaying publication of crucial information, SLAPP suits can have a chilling effect on public discourse.

Remand for Proper Consideration:

The Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of the underlying defamation case. Instead, it remanded the case back to the trial court, instructing them to re-evaluate the injunction application in light of the established legal standards.

This judgment by the Supreme Court stands as a significant victory for press freedom in India. It reinforces the importance of a robust legal framework that safeguards both free speech and the protection of reputations.