The Gujarat High Court has refused to strike down an ex-parte ad interim injunction awarded by a trial court against the news portal Newsclick, in connection with two articles published on the website about alleged favours granted by former Justice Arun Mishra to the Adani Group. The Adani Group had filed a Rs 100 crore defamation suit following the publication of two articles titled Justice Arun Mishra’s final gift of Rs 8,000 crores to Adani and Have Justice Arun Mishra’s judgments helped Adani Group?
Newsclick maintained that the articles were based on knowledge available in the public domain and also referred to the writings of scholar Dushyant Dave, as well as the information shared during a press conference by Supreme Court judges. It further pleaded that publishing the story was its right as a news media organization and that preventing it from doing so amounted to curbing the freedom of the press. The plaintiffs relied on Ramrameshwari Devi and Others vs. Nirmala Devi and others (Civil Appeal no 4912-4913 of 2011) to argue against a blanket gag order.
But Adani Group filed a defamation suit in September 2020, contending that not only was the alleged benefit of Rs 8,000 crores not referenced in Justice Mishra’s judgment, a Supreme Court judge had been disrespected.
According to an extract from the court’s observations in the matter published in LiveLaw, the court also found the matter pertaining to no mention of the alleged benefit of Rs 8,000 crore in the judgment by Justice Mishra to be a significant reason behind dismissing Newsclick’s plea. The court reportedly said, “It appears from the records that the defendant has not averred any facts regarding the benefit of almost Rs. 8000 Crore to be available to the plaintiff by the order of the Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court. There is no any material placed on record to show that how this figure has emerged from the judgment. The tenor of the language used in the Articles, prima-facie, supports the observation made by the trial Court while granting the injunction against the defendant – present appellant.”
Moreover, while the court recognised the freedom of expression is “imperatively necessary” for the media, it also reminded the plaintiffs that Article 19 (2) of the Constitution prohibits defamation. The court referred to Sakal Papers vs UoI (AIR 1962 SC 305) where it was observed, “Right to freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to publish and circular one’s ideas, information and views with complete freedom and by resorting to any available means of publication, subject to the restriction imposed under Article 19(2).”
The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the trial court to expedite the hearings in the main suit.
Related:
ED Raids & NewsClick: Weaponising law by Criminalising Free Speech
What is behind the synchronised Income Tax “survey” at NewsClick, Newslaundry?