Delhi HC rejects plea against bar on telecast of news about AAP MLA Naresh Balyan

Justice Arora further directed that “no adjournment” should be sought by either party and that they should cooperate with the trial court in the adjudication and disposal of the application for interim relief moved by Balyan in his main lawsuit.

The high court, however, made clear that it had not examined the merits of the contentions raised by the parties and that the same was left open to be decided by the competent court.

Balyan, who represents Delhi’s Uttam Nagar constituency, had moved a lawsuit in the trial court seeking a “mandatory and permanent injunction” restraining Times Now Navbharat from telecasting news spread or shared by “Kapil Sangwan, also known as Nandu of Nandu Gang”. The issue in the lawsuit pertains to an August 17 episode of the channel’s Operation Paap programme that Balyan claimed contained “false news”.

On August 17 the trial court issued a summons on the lawsuit to the television channel and passed an ex parte, ad interim order (in the application for interim relief) restraining it from broadcasting news under the heading “Operation Paap”. On August 18 the trial court extended the interim order until August 23 and granted time for the channel to file its reply. The channel moved the high court against these two orders.

“The petitioner’s anchor relied upon and played an audio recording of a conversation between Kapil Sangwan and the respondent (Balyan) herein during this episode. The respondent, aggrieved by the episode, instituted the civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction before the trial court. It is stated in the suit that the contents of the episode are false and no prior verification has been sought by the petitioner from the respondent herein before holding the debate and airing the episode,” the order notes.

The high court said the August 17 and August 18 interim orders were not without any jurisdiction and that the channel had admitted the trial court had “jurisdiction to adjudicate the reliefs” sought in Balyan’s lawsuit.

The high court said the “defence of truth” (which is a defence on the merits of the case) raised by the channel before it had not been placed before the trial court on August 18 and hence the trial court had “no occasion to consider this defence” and adjudicate the reliefs sought by Balyan.

The high court noted that the channel appeared before the trial court on August 18 and sought time to reply to Balyan’s application for interim relief on the main lawsuit.

“…However, it has admittedly not filed any reply apprising the said court with respect to its ‘defence of truth’.This court has no reason to conclude that the ‘defence of truth’ as contended by the petitioner along with the effect thereof on the maintainability of prayer for injunction, when placed before the learned trial court, will not be appreciated or adjudicated by the said court. This is not even the argument of the petitioner,” Justice Arora said.

The high court opined that the trial court had neither committed any “procedural impropriety nor violated principles of natural justice” in passing the interim orders. It further said the trial court and the appellate court were “competent to deal with the challenge to the impugned orders on its merits and adjudicate upon the ‘defence of truth’ raised” by the channel.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the channel, argued that the episode broadcast on August 17 was “absolutely fair, honest and it has been aired in public interest”. He argued the channel was willing to take upon itself the “onus of proving at trial” that the audio recording played in the episode was truthful.

He said that no injunction could be granted by the trial court to restrain the channel from broadcasting the news or episode and that the only remedy available for Balyan was seeking damages.

Singh further said the two interim orders qualified as a gag order, which is impermissible in law, and that the grant of such a gag order was against Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, and violated the channel’s fundamental right to broadcast news.

Senior advocate Mohit Mathur, appearing for Balyan, submitted that on August 17 the trial court granted his client an ad interim injunction, issued a summons to the channel and listed the case for August 18. On August 18, he added, the matter was adjourned to August 23 as per the request of the channel.

Mathur further said the arguments raised by the channel before the high court should be raised before the trial court. Without allowing its stand to be considered by the trial court, the channel moved the high court with a writ petition that is not maintainable in law, he further said.