| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Bloomberg Television Production Services vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises. |
| Introduction | The Supreme Court, in a plea filed by Bloomberg against a Delhi High Court order, emphasized that pre-trial injunctions against media should be rare, except in exceptional cases, to protect freedom of speech. |
| Factual Background | Bloomberg published an allegedly defamatory article against Zee Entertainment, leading to a trial court order for its removal. The Delhi High Court upheld this order, prompting Bloomberg’s appeal to the Supreme Court. |
| Legal Issues | 1. Granting pre-trial injunctions against publication of news articles.
2. Impact on freedom of speech and public’s right to know. |
| Applicable Law | Constitution of India: Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression). |
| Analysis | The Supreme Court stressed that courts should not grant pre-trial injunctions against publication without establishing malicious or palpably false content. Such injunctions can stifle public debate and must be exceptional. |
| Conclusion | The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s order against Bloomberg, emphasizing that injunctions should be granted only after a full-fledged trial. |
| Current Scenario | The case is significant for its impact on freedom of speech and the limitations on granting pre-trial injunctions against media platforms. |
CASE SUMMARY – The Supreme Court ruled that pre-trial injunctions against media should be rare, except in exceptional cases, to safeguard freedom of speech. The court set aside a trial court’s order against Bloomberg, stating that injunctions should be granted only after a full-fledged trial. The decision emphasizes the importance of ensuring the right to freedom of speech of authors and the public’s right to know. The court highlighted that granting injunctions before trial can stifle public debate and should only occur in cases where the respondent’s defense would undoubtedly fail at trial.
SOURCE- NDTV
READ MORE-THIRUMOORTHY vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
