The recent order from the Supreme Court cautioning against the grant of pre-trial injunctions on the media in civil suits for defamation serves as a timely reminder of the fundamental principles of law, especially in cases that could potentially impede freedom of speech and the public’s right to information. The Court’s decision came in response to a lower court’s directive to a news outlet to remove a defamatory article, emphasizing that such injunctions could stifle public debate.
In setting aside the lower court’s order, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the standard three-fold test for granting interim injunctions and underscored the importance of protecting journalistic expression as a constitutional mandate. It warned against the mechanical application of the test without proper analysis of the facts, emphasizing the need for courts to record reasoned decisions.
The Court highlighted three types of judicial orders that pose questionable constraints on journalistic publications: outright gag orders, omnibus prior restraint orders, and pre-trial injunctions against specific media outlets. Such orders, the Court noted, should only be granted if the content is defamatory and cannot be justified during trial.
Furthermore, the Court cautioned against the misuse of legal tactics such as Strategic Litigation/Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP) by those with influence and economic power to silence public criticism. It emphasized that early injunctions in prolonged trials could effectively act as a ‘death sentence’ against the material to be published.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s order serves as a crucial reminder of the need to uphold freedom of speech and journalistic expression, while also ensuring that legal remedies are not misused to stifle public discourse and scrutiny.
