The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Telangana High Court’s decision setting aside a media gag order in the Megha Engineering defamation case, reaffirming constitutional limits on prior restraint and strengthening press freedom protections.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined 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), while directing the trial court to complete the defamation proceedings within two years.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed MEIL’s appeal challenging the May 28, 2025, ruling of the Telangana High Court, which had struck down an ex parte injunction restraining multiple media organisations from publishing or broadcasting allegedly defamatory material against the company.
Background of the Case
The dispute arises from a defamation suit filed by MEIL against several media entities over investigative reports published in 2022, alleging financial impropriety, political favouritism and corruption linked to the company and its management. Some reports referred to projects such as the “Mana Ooru–Mana Badi” initiative.
Among the defendants were Tolivelugu.com, Tolivelugu YouTube Channel, The News Minute (TNM Web LLP), Spunklane Media Private Limited, V6 Velugu, VIL Media Private Limited, and Disha Newspaper.
On December 2, 2022, the trial court at Kukatpally granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction, restraining the media outlets from publishing, circulating, or uploading any content deemed defamatory against MEIL.
Hearing a batch of appeals filed by the media organisations, a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Justices T Vinod Kumar and P Sree Sudha set aside the trial court’s order, terming it a “media gag order” amounting to prior restraint on the press.
The High Court observed that such blanket injunctions have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It emphasised that restrictions can only be imposed on the limited grounds specified under Article 19(2).
In strong language, the Bench remarked that the injunction “scuttles the throat of the press,” holding that broad restraints preventing future publications are disproportionate and constitutionally impermissible, except in cases involving serious threats to national security or the fairness of a trial.
The High Court also noted that MEIL had approached the court nearly a year after the first publication, weakening its claim for urgent ex parte relief. Importantly, the company had chosen to file a suit seeking damages for defamation, rather than a suit simpliciter for defamation, which the Bench found relevant while assessing interim relief.
Further, the Court held that MEIL had suppressed material facts by failing to disclose that it had already filed a similar suit before the District Judge at Khammam against comparable publications.
Such non-disclosure, the Bench ruled, amounted to a clear abuse of the process of law, disentitling MEIL from discretionary relief such as a media injunction.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Upholding the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the judgment and dismissed MEIL’s appeal, effectively allowing the media organisations to continue reporting while the defamation trial proceeds.
The apex court also affirmed the High Court’s direction to the trial court to conclude the defamation trial within two years, ensuring expeditious adjudication.
MEIL was represented by Advocate Prashant Rawat before the Supreme Court.