HC sets aside local court's gag order against media houses
A bench of Justices T. Vinod Kumar and P. Sree Sudha, allowing a batch of three appeals filed by media organisations, said the trial court's ad-interim ex-parte injunction order was 'unreasoned'. The said order was contrary to the mandate under Civil Procedure Code and hence impermissible, the Division Bench said.
While passing such direction without issuing notices to the opposite parties, the court should record reasons as to why such order should be passed. The trial court passed the order but did not specify the time within which the respondents can get it vacated. This had deprived the appellants' right to file counter affidavit, the Bench observed.
The two-judge bench observed that gag orders should be scrutinized though they were meant to maintain the integrity of legal proceedings. The courts should ensure that such gag orders did not infringe upon the fundamental rights like the right to free speech. These rights can be curtailed only in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
Citing a Supreme Court verdict, the Division Bench noted that 'freedom of speech and expression was construed to include the freedom to circulate one's views by words of mouth or in writing or through audio-visual instrumentalities. This included the right to propagate one's views through the print media or any other communication channel like radio or television subject to reasonable restrictions. The Bench also noted that the company filed the suits for damages nearly a year after the publication of news.
The company also suppressed the fact that it had filed another suit in a court at Khammam seeking similar relief. This amounted to clear abuse of the process of law, the verdict said. Since the gag order was passed without adhering to established legal principles, it cannot be sustained, the Bench said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Tempo driver missing since 2021, wife moves Bombay High Court alleging mob lynching by cow vigilantes
In a chilling account of alleged mob violence and institutional apathy, a Mumbai-based woman, Reshma Rafiq Tamboli (33) has approached the Bombay High Court on Friday (August 8, 2025), seeking urgent intervention in tracing her husband, who has been missing for over two years after reportedly being assaulted by self-proclaimed cow vigilantes in Pune district. Ms. Tamboli, the petitioner, has alleged that her husband, Rafiq Mehboob Tamboli (35), a tempo driver, was abducted and possibly lynched by a group led by Shivshankar Swami — an individual claiming to be an Animal Welfare Officer appointed under a High Court-constituted committee. When the matter was called in the High Court, advocate Satish B. Talekar for the petitioner informed the Division Bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Gautam Ashwin Ankad, that the incident took place on the night of June 4, 2021, when Mr. Tamboli and a cleaner named Imran Sheikh Abdul Gafar were transporting meat from Pune's Indapur to Mumbai. They were intercepted near Daund by a group of men in a white car, who accused them of transporting beef illegally. The mob, allegedly armed with bamboo sticks and sharp weapons, reportedly dragged the two out of the vehicle, assaulted them, and raised communal slogans. The cleaner managed to escape and later narrated the sequence of events to the petitioner. Mr. Tamboli, however, has been untraceable since that night. Mr. Tamboli reached the location at Indapur around 8.30pm. The workers of the seller loaded the goods in the tempo and handed over the bills of the goods to him. The petitioner submitted to the court that she had a last telephonic conversation with her husband at about 9.30pm on June 4, 2021. At that time, he informed her that he had started from Indapur and was enroute Mumbai. 'On their way to Mumbai, a white car started following. The men called out threats and abuses and called upon them to stop the tempo. Sensing a threat, they did not stop the vehicle and kept driving ahead. At around 10.30 pm, the white car succeeded in overtaking the tempo of the petitioner and stopped the tempo. Around 5-6 men stepped out of the car and rushed towards the tempo and dragged the petitioner's husband and the cleaner by breaking the glass of the windows of the tempo and started assaulting them with kicks and fists,' the petition said. The attackers were carrying bamboo sticks, knives, swords in their hands and were shouting slogans of 'Jai Shri Ram'. The assailants forcibly unloaded the tempo, tore open the packages, and allegedly discovered beef along with other items such as green vegetables. Despite the driver and cleaner producing valid bills for the consignment from the seller, the mob reportedly destroyed the documents and continued to thrash both men brutally. According to the petition, they ignored the fact that the victims were merely transporters and not owners of the goods. The duo was allegedly robbed during the assault, with cash and personal belongings snatched by the attackers. While the cleaner, managed to escape the mob and hid in nearby bushes, Mr. Tamboli was chased down when he attempted to flee. The attackers later took the tempo to Daund Police Station and filed FIR at around 4.12am on June 5, 2021, accusing the driver, cleaner, meat seller, and vehicle owner of offences under Section 429 of the IPC and Sections 5(c), 9(a), and 9(b) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1995. The FIR alleged illegal possession, sale, and transportation of beef, but did not name any of the accused individuals. The petitioner contends that the FIR filed by Mr. Swami was based on distorted facts. On June 5, 2021, Ms. Tamboli was informed by a man named Sadik that while the tempo had been seized by the police, her husband was missing. Despite repeated attempts, her husband's phone was unreachable. She initially approached Chunabhatti Police Station in Mumbai on June 6, 2021, to lodge a complaint, but was redirected to the jurisdictional police. At Daund Police Station, despite being aware of the incident, officers refused to file an FIR for assault or abduction and instead registered a missing person's report only on June 9. The petitioner accused the police of deliberate inaction and claimed that despite knowing her husband's disappearance was linked to a violent mob attack, they failed to investigate or connect the dots. She later met the cleaner, Imran Sheikh, who narrated the incident and submitted an affidavit corroborating the petitioner's claims. Further complaints were made to the Superintendent of Police, Pune Rural, on June 28, 2021, naming Shivshankar Swami and others, but no FIR was registered. The petitioner alleged that police ignored her detailed complaints disclosing cognizable offences, and instead shielded the accused. She fears her husband may be dead or detained without trace. The petiton highlighted the pattern of systemic targeting of members of the Qureshi community and meat industry workers by self-styled 'gau-rakshaks', who allegedly operate under the cover of ID cards issued by an animal welfare committee constituted by the High Court. These vigilantes engage in mob violence with impunity and police support, the petition said. The petitioner highlighted that as early as January 16, 2018, the Additional Commissioner of Animal Husbandry had written to the Maharashtra government recommending the cancellation of appointments of Mr. Swami and Milind Ekbote due to their involvement in 'anti-legal activities.' However, no action was taken, and Mr. Swami was allegedly allowed to continue operating with impunity. Ms. Tamboli made several attempts to seek help through social organisations, which submitted representations to senior officials, including the then Deputy Chief Minister, Superintendent of Police (Pune Rural), and Daund Police, on at least six occasions between September 2021 and August 2022. Yet, no FIR was registered, and no investigation initiated. The petitioner alleged a deliberate cover-up by police officials acting in collusion with Mr. Swami. She pointed out that her husband, the sole breadwinner, has left behind a distressed family—herself, a homemaker, and two children aged 13 and 11—struggling emotionally and financially. The petitioner asserted that her husband was last seen in the custody of Mr. Swami. In her plea, Ms. Tamboli has sought: production of her husband before the court; registration of an FIR against Swami and his associates for assault and suspected abduction; constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT); and disciplinary action against erring police officials who failed to take action. All India Jamatul Quresh Committee have preferred several representations requesting the police authorities to register offence against Shivshankar Swami and his associates, but to no avail, Mr. Talekar added. The Bench asked why the FIR was not lodged and whether the missing person's investigation was done by police and whether the police posted his photos on electronic and print media. Additional Public Prosecutor, Konde Deshmukh submitted to the court that he will place all the papers of investigation before Superintendent of Police, Solapur who will decide whether to register offence against Shivshankar Swami. The court had adjourned the matter till next week.
NDTV
5 hours ago
- NDTV
Top Court Stays Madhya Pradesh Order In Saif Ali Khan Family Property Dispute
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday granted an interim stay on a Madhya Pradesh High Court order remanding a decades-old property dispute involving the royal estate of Bhopal's last Nawab, Hamidullah Khan, to the trial court for fresh adjudication. A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Atul Chandurkar issued notice on a plea of Omar Faruq Ali and Raashid Ali, descendants of the elder brother of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, against the high court's order of June 30. The petitioners have challenged the high court's decision to set aside a February 14, 2000, trial court judgment that upheld the exclusive rights of Nawab's daughter Sajida Sultan, her son Mansoor Ali Khan (former India cricket captain), and their legal heirs, actor Saif Ali Khan, Soha Ali Khan, Saba Sultan, and veteran actress Sharmila Tagore, over the estate. The high court said the trial court's ruling was based on a 1997 Allahabad High Court verdict which was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2019. However, instead of applying the 2019 precedent and deciding the case conclusively, the high court remanded the matter for re-evaluation. Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat, appearing for the petitioners, said the high court remand order was contrary to the procedural norms outlined under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The case has its origins in civil suits filed in 1999 by members of the Nawab's extended family, including the late Begum Suraiya Rashid and her children, Mahabano (also deceased), Niloufar, Nadir, and Yawar, as well as Nawabzadi Qamar Taj Rabia Sultan, another daughter of the Nawab. The plaintiffs sought partition, possession, and equitable settlement of the Nawab's private estate. The trial court ruled in favor of Sajida Sultan, stating the estate was not subject to Muslim Personal Law and had devolved upon her under constitutional provisions. Following the Nawab's death in 1960, the Government of India issued a 1962 certificate recognising Sajida Sultan as both the ruler and rightful heir to the personal estate under Article 366(22) of the Constitution. The plaintiffs, however, contended the Nawab's personal estate should be distributed among all legal heirs under Muslim Personal Law. They also pointed out the 1962 certificate was not formally contested but claimed it should not bar equitable partition. The respondents, including actor Saif Ali Khan and his family, argued succession followed the rule of primogeniture and Sajida Sultan had rightfully inherited both the royal title (Gaddi) and personal properties. While overturning the trial court ruling, the high court remanded the case. The petitioners moved the top court seeking reversal of the remand order.
The Hindu
7 hours ago
- The Hindu
Bombay HC seeks State's stand on PIL for use of loudspeakers for Azan in 24 mosques
The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Government to file a detailed response on the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking permission for 24 mosques to use loudspeakers for the Azan, in compliance with legal decibel limits. The petition, filed by the Hazrat Khwaja Garib Nawaz Welfare Association Maharashtra through its General Secretary, Mohammed Yusuf Umar Ansari, seeks directions to allow regulated use of loudspeakers for the Azan in specific mosques. The State Government has raised preliminary objections, questioning the locus standi and credibility of the petitioner. Government Pleader P.H. Kantharia submitted that Mr. Ansari is facing an externment order dated May 16, and had allegedly violated it by entering Mumbai to file the petition affidavit on July 4. Four criminal cases are also pending against him under the Indian Penal Code. The State further submitted that an audio clip circulated by Mr. Ansari, allegedly inviting 22,900 people to attend the court hearing, created a potential law-and-order issue, prompting additional police deployment around the High Court premises. It argued that, given his conduct and background, the court should not entertain the PIL. Advocate Shaikh Imran Mubarak, appearing for Mr. Ansari, denied all allegations. The Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne directed the State to file formal objections within two weeks, with the petitioner permitted to respond within two weeks thereafter. 'In order to enable us to decide with regard to the locus and maintainability of the PIL at the instance of the General Secretary of the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to direct the learned Government Pleader to submit objections to the maintainability of the PIL by way of objections after supplying a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Let the objections be filed within two weeks from today,' the Bench said. 'Needless to state that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file response thereto within a further period of two weeks from receipt of such objections,' it added. The Bench also noted that a similar matter is pending and ordered both cases to be clubbed for a joint hearing after four weeks. The petitioner argued that the Azan - the Islamic call to prayer - takes place five times daily, each lasting less than three minutes, without musical instruments or amplifiers that cause disruptive noise. He cited the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, and WHO guidelines to contend that the Azan falls within permissible sound levels in residential and silence zones. Mr. Ansari has attached 22,900 signatures from citizens in support of reinstating loudspeakers at the mosques, asserting that other public noise sources - such as traffic, political rallies, and festivals across religions - often exceed 120 decibels without consistent regulatory enforcement. He submitted that the Azan is delivered at fixed times - 5 a.m., 1 p.m., 5.30 p.m., 6.45 p.m., and 8.45 p.m. - and is integral to religious practice. The PIL seeks to prevent selective application of noise regulations that, he argued, disproportionately affect minority religious groups. The petition names 24 mosques in Mumbai allegedly affected by the removal of loudspeakers, including the Dargah Hazrat Syed Makhdoom Shah and the Masjid Compound Trust.
