Telangana High Court Quashes Gag Order Barring The News Minute From Reporting Private Firm's Alleged Role In IAS Officer's Daughter's Wedding

Telangana High Court quashed a 2022 ex-parte interim order passed by a local court, restraining various entities including Bengaluru based online news platform 'The News Minutes', from publishing content on the alleged involvement of Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Ltd in clearing bills for the wedding of a senior IAS officer's daughter. 

The court passed the order in appeals filed by three entities–an e-paper 'Tolivelugu' and its Editor, Spunklane Media Private Limited which runs 'The News Minute' and Telugu News Channel 'V6 Velugu' which is run by VIL Media Private Limited. 

A division bench of Justice T. Vinod Kumar and Justice P. Sree Sudha, noted that the order passed by the trial court amounted to a "GAG order" which while being passed should not curtail freedom of speech.

"In the instant case the trial Court has granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction in favour of respondent No.1 restraining the appellants from publishing, circulating, advertising, uploading, transmitting or broadcasting any derogatory statements, libelous or defamatory statements by any means against the respondent No.1. It is to be noted that the nature of the impugned order passed, by the trial Court amounts to a 'GAG' order. A gag order refers  to judicial or executive action that prohibits individuals from  expressing or making any public statements. While gag orders  are recognized as a tool to maintain the integrity of legal proceedings, their application should be scrutinized. The Courts  must ensure that 'gag' orders are necessary, proportionate, and  do not infringe upon constitutional rights, particularly the  fundamental right to free speech. Furthermore, the fundamental  rights can only be curtailed in accordance with Article 19(2) of  the Constitution of India."

The court further referred to Supreme Court's decision in Mohd. Zubair v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) where apex court had held that "Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech". The bench further referred to Supreme Court's recent decision in Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat where the apex court highlighted the importance of freedom of expression and the duty of the courts to uphold such freedom. 

The court further said that Megha Engineering Ltd being aggrieved by the alleged defamatory publications made by the appellants on various dates between January and September 2022, filed a suit for recovery of damages for defamation and mandatory injunction only in December 2022.

"Upon examination of the aforementioned series of publications, it becomes evident that Respondent No.1 (Megha) filed the suit for damages pertaining to the alleged defamatory content nearly a year after to the initial publication. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that Respondent No.1 opted to file a suit for recovery of damages for defamation, rather than a Suit for defamation, which specifically addresses the defamation," the bench said. 

Gag order that scuttles press freedom

It further observed:

"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. The Supreme Court in various instances had underscored the protection of media freedom by opposing passing of gag orders. 16 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 court further said that Megha Engineering while filing the present defamation lawsuit in 2022 had deliberately suppressed it having filed another suit on the file of Additional District Judge, Khammam, in which the company had sought similar reliefs against similar publications and the said suit is pending adjudication.

The bench said that this action of suppression by Megha Engineering "amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law", as the ad-interim injunction order in the present case was granted "without adhering to the established legal principles that courts are mandated to follow before issuing such ex parte orders". 

The bench further noted that as per Order 39 Rule 3 CPC any court while granting ad-interim ex parte injunction order without issuing notice to the opposite party shall "record reasons for its opinion" that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay. The court said injunction order was contrary to the Order XXXIX Rule 3 proviso  and Rule 3A CPC.

Allowing the appeals the court set aside the trial court's order.

Background

As per report by 'The News Minute', the wedding of the IAS officer Rajat Kumar's daughter was held in Hyderabad in 2021 where allegedly "top hotels" and a "banquet at the luxurious Taj Falaknuma Palace" was booked.

As per the news report, as per a "money trail" found by the news platform, the documents therein showed that "executives of a Hyderabad-based government contractor — Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Limited (MEIL) — were intimately involved in the planning of the wedding". 

The report states that Megha Engineering is stated to be involved in the planning and setting up of the Kaleshwaram Project, alleging that Kumar–who was then heading Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, which is stated to be monitored the Kaleshwaram project, thus showing a "unofficial relationship" between him and the company. 

Against this Megha Engineering approached the trial court seeking an ex-parte ad interim order to restrain News Minute and other news entities.

Megha Engineering further alleged that  e-magazine of Toli Velugu, published the defamatory statements accompanied by the photographs of managing director of the company alongside a senior IAS officer. These publications, Megha alleged, continued over several months, reiterating the allegations of bribery and political favouritism against the company. 

Case title:  Spunklane Media Private Limited and others vs Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Limited and others and Batch

Counsel for appellants: Advocates T. Rajanikanth Reddy, A. Chandra Shekhar, Sai Sanjay Surineni. 

Counsel for respondents: Senior Counsel, K.V Bhanu Prasad appearing on behalf advocate Sri V. Seetha Rama Avadhani

Click Here To Read/Download Order