Supreme Court reverses trial court order against Bloomberg in Zee defamation case
The top court was hearing a plea filed by Bloomberg against the March 14 order of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed its appeal against the trail court order
iThe Supreme Court on Friday set aside a trial court's order directing international media group Bloomberg to take down an allegedly defamatory news article against Zee Entertainment.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by Bloomberg against the March 14 order of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed its appeal against the trail court order.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said the error committed by the trial judge had been perpetuated by the high court.
"The error committed by the trial judge had been perpetuated by the high court. Merely recording that a prima-facie case exists for a grant of injunction, the balance of convenience lies in Zee's favour and that an irreparable injury would be caused would not amount to application of mind in the case," the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said while granting liberty to Zee to approach the trial court afresh with its prayer seeking injunction.
Reacting on the apex court order, Bloomberg News spokesperson said, "We are very encouraged by today's decision from the Supreme Court of India, and we continue to stand by this story."
Justice Shalinder Kaur of the high court had said there was no ground to interfere with the ex-parte interim order passed by the Additional District Judge (ADJ) on the lawsuit by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited over the article published on February 21, and ordered Bloomberg to comply with the direction in three days.
On March 1, the ADJ had directed Bloomberg to take down the allegedly defamatory article within a week, saying Zee had established a "prima facie case for passing ad-interim ex-parte orders of injunction".
The ADJ had said the balance of convenience is in Zee's favour and irreparable loss and injury might be caused to the company if the injunction was not granted.
The appellant contended before the high court that the lawsuit was intended to intimidate and silence their right to free and fair speech.
It was also claimed that the ADJ did not give the portal an opportunity to place before it several other articles published prior in time and was denied a right to establish their case.
