Telangana High Court: Gag Orders Scuttle The Throat Of Press; Freedom Of Speech Includes Right To Propagate One's Views Through Print Media

The Court allowed an Appeal challenging an ad-interim ex parte injunction, setting aside a ‘gag order’ passed by the Trial Court that had restrained media organisations from publishing, circulating, advertising, uploading, transmitting, or broadcasting any derogatory or defamatory statements against an engineering and infrastructure company.

A Division Bench of Justice T Vinod Kumar and Justice P Sree Sudha remarked, “It is to be noted that the words “freedom of speech and expression” must, therefore, be broadly construed to include the freedom to circulate one's views by words of mouth or in writing or through audio-visual instrumentalities. Therefore, it includes the right to propagate one's views through the print media or any other communication channel, e.g. the radio and the television. It is obvious that subject to reasonable restrictions placed under Article 19(2), a citizen has a right to publish, circulate and disseminate his views and any attempt to thwart or deny the same would offend Article 19(1)(a).”

Advocate A. Chandra Sekhar appeared for the Appellants, while Senior Advocate K.V. Bhanu Prasad represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The Respondent, an engineering and infrastructure company, had claimed to be subjected to a series of defamatory publications by the Appellants, alleging involvement in financial misconduct and political dealings, which tarnished its reputation and business standing. Specific instances cited by the Respondent included publications linking the company to funding an IAS officer's daughter's marriage. Additionally, an e-magazine alleged the company provided Rupees 27 crores in election funds to BJP, implying a 'quid pro quo' arrangement. Further defamatory statements with photographs of the managing director alongside a senior IAS officer were published by Toli Velugu e-magazine. Articles under the caption "Badipy Avineethi Meghalu" were also published concerning the "Mana Ooru-Mana Badi" project, alleging the company's involvement in the scam.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court clarified, “The gag orders or order of restraint or injunction should be passed only when it is necessary to prevent substantial risk, to fairness of a trial. In the absence of any such substantial risk the Court cannot pass any restraint or gag order.”

“Thus, having regard to the discussions made above, the order dated. 02.12.2022 passed by the trial Court in the underlying interlocutory Application is a ‘gag’ Order inasmuch as the impugned order scuttles the throat of the press i.e. the appellants…A gag order can only be passed when there is a substantial risk to national security and to fairness of trial. Any restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) must strictly conform to the grounds enumerated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution,” the Bench remarked,

Consequently, the Court ordered, “Resultantly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed in terms of the above observations. The impugned order of the trial Court dated. 02.12.2022 is set-aside. No order as to costs.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Gajjala Narasimha Reddy v. Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Ltd. (C.M.A. Nos. 22, 45 and 51 of 2023)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates A. Chandra Sekhar, T. Rajani Kanth Reddy and Sai Sanjay Suraneni

Respondent: Senior Advocate K.V. Bhanu Prasad; Advocate V. Seetha Rama Avadhani

Click here to read/download the Judgment