Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by a digital media journalist (defendant No. 66 in the underlying defamation suit) challenging an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 18-07-2025 passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.5185/2025. The suit was instituted by the first respondent (plaintiff) against 338 defendants, alleging defamation and seeking mandatory and prohibitory injunctions to remove, delete and de-index over 8842 web links containing allegedly false and defamatory content, and to restrain further publication concerning Crime No. 39 of 2025 registered at Dharmasthala Police Station under Section 211(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complaints involved allegations of human remains buried within the Dharmasthala temple premises and the mysterious disappearance of a girl in 2003, which sparked public outcry and the constitution of a Special Investigating Team. The trial court, without hearing any of the defendants, passed an omnibus gag order on the same day, effectively imposing a prior restraint on all media and directing the take-down of a vast number of URLs. The petitioner, aggrieved by this sweeping order, approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 contending that the order was passed in gross violation of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC as it recorded no reasons, was a mandatory injunction granted at the interim stage without notice, and constituted an unconstitutional restraint on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The respondent raised a threshold objection regarding maintainability, arguing that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC or by filing a vacation application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. The High Court, after analyzing the law, held that despite the availability of an alternative remedy, a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable when the order is patently illegal, passed in breach of natural justice, and is a product of non-application of mind. On merits, the Court found that the order was bereft of any reasons for granting a drastic mandatory injunction that silenced the media on a matter of public importance, and that it illegitimately extended to undefined future speakers (a John Doe order). The Court declared that prior restraint on speech can only be imposed after hearing the affected party and with adequate justification; otherwise, it violates Article 19(1)(a). Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 18-07-2025 and directed the trial court to hear the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order after providing notice to all necessary parties.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex Parte Injunction - Mandatory Injunction at Interlocutory Stage - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 3 - The suit was for mandatory and prohibitory injunctions against 338 defendants to remove web links and restrain further publication. The trial court granted an ex parte ad-interim mandatory injunction without notice to the defendants and without recording reasons as required under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. The High Court held that such an order was illegal and a colourable exercise of jurisdiction, as interim mandatory injunction should not be granted at the threshold without hearing the affected parties. (Paras 4, 8, 9) B) Constitutional Law - Freedom of Speech and Expression - Prior Restraint - Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) - The impugned order imposed a blanket gag order on the media, directing removal of over 8842 web links and restraining any future speech on a matter of public importance. The court held that such a prior restraint without justification and without hearing the speaker violates the fundamental right to free speech. A John Doe order extending prohibition to undefined future speakers was deemed unconstitutional. (Paras 4, 9) C) Civil Procedure - Ex Parte Injunction - Recording of Reasons - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rule 3 - The court must record reasons for granting an ex parte injunction, especially when it has the effect of a mandatory order. Failure to do so renders the order violative of natural justice and procedurally flawed. The court found the order bereft of reasons and thus illegal. (Paras 4, 8) D) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Despite the availability of an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, the High Court held that a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable when the impugned order is patently illegal, violative of natural justice, and an abuse of process. The alternative remedy is not a bar where the order is a product of non-application of mind. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Maintainability of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 when alternative remedy of appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC is available; legality and validity of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order that directed removal of over 8842 web links and imposed a blanket gag order on media without notice or reasons.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 18-07-2025 passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.5185/2025 was quashed and set aside. The trial court was directed to hear the application for injunction afresh after notice to all parties and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Law Points
- ex parte ad-interim injunction must record reasons as per Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC
- prior restraint on speech violates Article 19(1)(a) unless justified
- mandatory injunction should not be granted at interlocutory stage without hearing
- writ petition under Article 227 maintainable despite availability of appeal when order is patently illegal
