Why in news?

Recently, a lower court issued a sweeping ex-parte gag order restraining several journalists, including Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, from publishing allegedly defamatory content against Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL). The order also directed removal of numerous articles and social media posts.

Following this, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued takedown notices, resulting in the removal of 138 YouTube videos and 83 Instagram posts — some being satire or indirect references to Adani.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• SC Guidelines on Defamation Injunctions
• The September 6 Adani Gag Order
• Delhi Court Quashes Gag Order in Adani Defamation Case

SC Guidelines on Defamation Injunctions

• The Bonnard Standard
  • The Supreme Court follows the Bonnard principle (1891, Bonnard vs Perryman).
  • It states that a court can grant an injunction only when it is satisfied that the defendant may not be able to justify the defamation, and not merely when it suspects defamation.
• SC’s Bloomberg Ruling (2024)
  • In 2024, the SC applied this principle while overturning an ex parte injunction ordering Bloomberg to take down an article on Zee Entertainment.
  • The Court stressed that pre-trial injunctions should be rare, granted only when withholding them would cause “greater injustice.”
• Supreme Court’s Caution on Ex Parte Orders
  • The SC has held that ex parte injunctions in free speech cases must only be granted in exceptional circumstances, and only when content is “malicious” or “palpably false.”
  • Otherwise, they risk stifling public debate and undermining the public’s right to know.

The September 6 Adani Gag Order

• A Delhi court issued a blanket gag order restraining Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and others from publishing content about Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL), while also authorising takedown of existing material within 36 hours.
• This judgement had serious lacunas:
  • No judicial examination of the allegedly defamatory content was carried out.
  • The order effectively allowed AEL to curate public information about itself.
  • Journalists were restrained from publishing “unverified or defamatory” reports, amounting to prior restraint — unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(a).
• Why Prior Restraint is Problematic?
  • Restrictions on speech are valid only under Article 19(2), covering grounds like sovereignty, security, public order, morality, and defamation.
  • But prior restraint carries a heavy burden of proof and is rarely justified.
  • Journalists must be heard since truth and fair comment are lawful defences in defamation cases.

Delhi Court Quashes Gag Order in Adani Defamation Case

• Later, District Judge of Delhi Court quashed the gag order for four journalists — Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi — stating the order was unsustainable.
• The court emphasised that the journalists had not been given an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.
• It noted that declaring articles defamatory and ordering their removal without defence could lead to irreversible consequences.
  • If later found non-defamatory, restoring removed content would be infeasible.
• Key Highlights of the Judgement
  • The gag order was quashed for being ex-parte and unsustainable.
    • An ex parte order is a court ruling made at the request of one party without the other being present or notified.
    • It is granted only in urgent situations for temporary relief, such as restraining orders, to prevent harm until a full hearing with both parties ensures fairness and due process.
  • The court reaffirmed that defendants must be given a chance to present their defence before sweeping takedown orders.
  • Judge warned against irreversible harm from premature content removal.
  • The ruling narrowed the scope but left other related appeals and the main defamation trial pending.