Supreme Court refuses to revive trial court media gag in Megha Engineering defamation case

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere with a Telangana High Court judgment that set aside an interim “media gag order” granted in favour of Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Limited (MEIL), directing the trial court to complete the defamation trial within two years. (Megha Engineering and Infrastructure v. Gajjala Narasimha Reddy)

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the appeal against the Telangana High Court’s May 28, 2025 ruling, which had struck down an ex parte injunction restraining several media entities, including Tolivelugu.com, Tolivelugu YouTube Channel, The News Minute (TNM Web LLP), Spunklane Media Private Limited, V6 Velugu, VIL Media Private Limited and Disha Newspaper from publishing or disseminating allegedly defamatory material against MEIL.

MEIL had drawn public attention in recent years after its name figured among major corporate donors disclosed under the now-scrapped electoral bonds scheme.

The Telangana High Court Division Bench of Justices T Vinod Kumar and P Sree Sudha had allowed a batch of appeals filed by several media entities, including digital news platforms and broadcasters, who were defendants pending before the trial court at Kukatpally.

The suit was filed by MEIL seeking damages for defamation and a mandatory injunction over a series of reports published in 2022 alleging financial impropriety, political favouritism and corruption involving the company and its management, including in relation to the “Mana Ooru–Mana Badi” project.

While issuing notice in the suit, the trial court had granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction on December 2, 2022, restraining the defendants from publishing, circulating, uploading or broadcasting any allegedly libellous or defamatory content against MEIL in any form.

The High Court characterised the injunction as a “gag order”, observing that such orders amount to prior restraint on the press and have a chilling effect on free speech.

The Bench held that the order “scuttles the throat of the press” and reiterated that restrictions on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) can be imposed only on the limited grounds specified in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The Court underscored that blanket restraints preventing the media from publishing content are disproportionate and constitutionally impermissible, unless there is a substantial risk to national security or the fairness of a trial.

The Division Bench also took note of the fact that MEIL had approached the court nearly a year after the first publication and had chosen to file a suit seeking damages for defamation, rather than a suit simpliciter for defamation, which the Court found relevant while assessing the grant of urgent ex parte relief.

Further, the High Court held that MEIL had suppressed material facts by failing to disclose that it had already filed a suit before the District Judge at Khammam, seeking similar reliefs against similar publications.

Such non-disclosure, the Bench said, amounted to a clear abuse of the process of law, disentitling MEIL from discretionary relief.

MEIL's plea was filed by Advocate Prashant Rawat.