Today (22nd March), The Supreme Court set aside a previous order against Bloomberg’s report on Zee Entertainment, which alleged a $241 million accounting irregularity. This decision nullified an injunction ordering Bloomberg to remove the article, emphasizing the need for a more thorough assessment of facts in such cases.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court set aside orders directing Bloomberg to take down a report alleging a $241 million accounting discrepancy within Zee Entertainment’s records.
READ ALSO: Delhi High Court Dismisses Bloomberg’s Appeal to Retain Story Targeting Zee
The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, expressed dissatisfaction with prior decisions made by both the Delhi High Court and a lower trial court in this case.
Highlighting the necessity for a thorough examination of facts, the Court stressed that the High Court should have properly evaluated whether the prerequisites for granting an injunction, as per the three-fold test, were met.
“The failure of the trial judge is echoed in the High Court’s decision. Mere recitation of the three-fold test without proper factual assessment is insufficient. Hence, we are compelled to annul the trial court and High Court rulings,” stated the apex court.
READ ALSO: Bloomberg vs. Zee: Delhi HC Reserves Judgement on Article Takedown Order
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal challenging a March 14 ruling by the Delhi High Court, which upheld a prior trial court’s ex-parte injunction requiring Bloomberg to retract its article.
The article, titled “India Regulator Uncovers $241 Million Accounting Issue at Zee,” alleged that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had discovered a significant accounting irregularity in Zee Entertainment’s financial records.
Following its publication on February 21, Zee initiated a defamation lawsuit against Bloomberg and its journalists, Anto Antony, Saikat Das, and Preeti Singh, in a Delhi district court.
In an interim measure, the trial court directed Bloomberg to remove the article, a decision upheld by the Delhi High Court on March 14. Bloomberg was given a three-day ultimatum to comply with the High Court’s removal directive.
Bloomberg subsequently contested this decision before the Supreme Court
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi arguing that the High Court had erred in its judgment.
Rohtagi emphasized that in matters concerning the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, the High Court’s order should not leave Bloomberg defenseless.
During proceedings, the CJI questioned Zee’s counsel about whether the lower court rulings had demonstrated a prima facie application of mind.
“Merely drafting extensive documents does not equate to a thoughtful consideration,” remarked the CJI.
In response, Zee’s counsel reiterated the article’s defamatory and false nature.
However, the CJI emphasized the necessity for well-reasoned injunction orders.
“We are dealing with an appeal here. Simply invoking terms like ‘prima facie,’ ‘irreparable injury,’ and ‘balance of convenience’ does not suffice for a reasoned order,” emphasized the CJI.
READ ALSO: Bloomberg Challenges Delhi High Court’s Order to Remove Zee Article
Consequently, the Supreme Court nullified the High Court and trial court orders, and the court expressed his dissatisfaction that the three-fold test for granting an injunction had been adequately applied.
The three-fold test, comprising the establishment of a prima facie case, consideration of the balance of convenience, and assessment of potential irreparable legal injury, remains pivotal in determining the grant of injunctions.
Additionally, the Court clarified that the trial court may revisit the matter concerning whether an injunction should be issued against Bloomberg.
[CASE TITLE: Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited and Ors v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited].
