Supreme Court sets aside orders directing Bloomberg to take down story against Zee Entertainment

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside court orders directing Bloomberg to take down a report alleging that a $241 million accounting irregularity had been found in the books of Zee Entertainment [Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited and Ors v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also expressed dissatisfaction with earlier orders passed by the Delhi High Court and a trial court in the matter. The Court emphasized that the High Court ought to have properly assessed whether the three-fold test for grant of an injunction was satisfied through an evaluation of the facts."Error by trial judge is repeated by the High Court as well. The three-fold test cannot be just recorded as a mantra without appreciation of facts. We have no option but to set aside this order of the trial court and the High Court," the top court said. .The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against a March 14 Delhi High Court order that had upheld an ex-parte trial court order directing Bloomberg to take down its article.In the said report, titled India Regulator Uncovers $241 Million Accounting Issue at Zee, it was alleged that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had found a $241 million accounting irregularity in the books of Zee Entertainment.After the article's publication on February 21, Zee filed a defamation suit before a Delhi district court against Bloomberg and its journalists Anto Antony, Saikat Das and Preeti Singh.A trial court ordered Bloomberg to take down its article in an interim order. The Delhi High Court upheld this injunction order on March 14. Bloomberg was given three days' time to comply with the takedown directive by the High Court.This High Court decision was then challenged by Bloomberg before the Supreme Court..Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for Bloomberg, contended today that the High Court had erred.He emphasized that in a case concerning the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, the High Court could not have passed an order which left Bloomberg defenseless..Thereafter, the CJI asked the counsel for Zee if the High Court and trial court orders had demonstrated a prima facie application of mind."Writing five pages does not mean application of mind, you see," the CJI added.In response, Zee's counsel stated that the article was per se defamatory and false.The CJI, however, reiterated that injunction orders must be reasoned."We are hearing an appeal. Just saying 'prima facie', 'irreparable injury', 'balance of convenience' does not make a reasoned order," the CJI said.The Court proceeded to set aside the High Court and trial court orders since it was not convinced that the courts have properly applied the three-fold test for the grant of an injunction.The three-fold test here refers to whether (i) a prima facie case has been made out to warrant a restraining order or an injunction order, (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the person seeking an injunction order and (iii) whether irreparable legal injury would ensue if an injunction order is not granted..The Court also clarified that the matter of whether an injunction should be granted against Bloomberg may be reconsidered by the trial court..Bloomberg was represented by a team from Kochhar & Co comprising Managing Partner Rohit Kochhar, Partners Shiv Sapra, and Samiron Borkataky, and Associates Rajat Gava, Ikshvaaku Marwah, Sanskriti Shrimali, and Vishal Singh..Advocates Mahesh Agarwal, Madhavi Agarwal, Shashwat Singh, and EC Agrawala appeared for ZEEL..[Read order]