Supreme Court Reverses Trial Court Order in Bloomberg-Zee Defamation Case

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Friday overturned a trial court’s order directing Bloomberg, the international media group, to remove an allegedly defamatory news article against Zee Entertainment.

The apex court was adjudicating on a plea filed by Bloomberg challenging the March 14 order of the Delhi High Court, which had dismissed Bloomberg’s appeal against the trial court directive.

A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the error made by the trial judge was perpetuated by the high court.

The bench stated, “Merely recording that a prima facie case exists for a grant of injunction, the balance of convenience lies in Zee’s favour, and that irreparable injury would be caused, would not amount to application of mind in the case.” Consequently, the Supreme Court granted liberty to Zee to approach the trial court afresh with its request for an injunction.

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, a Bloomberg News spokesperson expressed optimism, stating, “We are very encouraged by today’s decision from the Supreme Court of India, and we continue to stand by this story.”

Previously, Justice Shalinder Kaur of the high court had upheld the ex-parte interim order passed by the Additional District Judge (ADJ) on Zee Entertainment’s lawsuit regarding the article published on February 21. The high court had directed Bloomberg to comply with the order within three days.

The ADJ had initially directed Bloomberg to remove the allegedly defamatory article within a week on March 1, asserting that Zee had established a “prima facie case for passing ad-interim ex-parte orders of injunction.” The court also noted that the balance of convenience favored Zee and that irreparable harm might be inflicted on the company without the injunction.

Bloomberg argued before the high court that the lawsuit was an attempt to stifle its right to free speech and fair reporting. It also alleged that the ADJ had denied the portal an opportunity to present several other articles published earlier and had deprived it of the chance to establish its case.

 If you like this law news, share it with a friend!