The High Court dismissed an appeal by IE Online Media Services Pvt. Ltd., publisher of indianexpress.com, under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC and upheld the trial court’s interim injunction directing de-indexing/de-referencing and restraint on further circulation of specific online news articles about the plaintiff after his discharge and exoneration in criminal proceedings.
In August 2023, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had arrested the plaintiff in connection with alleged irregularities relating to M/s Moser Baer India Ltd., following which multiple media houses, including IE Online, reported the arrest and associated him with the case. On 17 August 2024, the jurisdictional court discharged the plaintiff, holding there was no prima facie case or admissible evidence linking him to the offence. On 24 July 2025, the entire complaint was dismissed. The ED filed an appeal against the discharge on 24 September 2024, but there was no stay of the discharge or dismissal orders.
The plaintiff instituted an application seeking injunctive reliefs. On 10 November 2025, the trial court granted interim orders restraining further publication and directing de-indexing/de-referencing of the impugned URLs. IE Online filed the instant appeal against the same order.
The plaintiff pleaded that the continued presence and searchability of the impugned articles on digital platforms perpetuated an impression of guilt despite his discharge and dismissal of the case, causing ongoing reputational and professional harm. The plaintiff framed his reliefs in two tracks: (a) classic defamation/libel, and (b) independent reliefs grounded in privacy, dignity and right to be forgotten under Article 21, not confined to the one-year limitation in Article 75 of the Limitation Act.
The defendants argued that their reports were fair, accurate, good-faith coverage of ED actions and court proceedings, protected by qualified privilege and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and that they had already added “updates” noting his discharge. They also submitted that the content was now archival, behind a paywall, accessible only to premium subscribers, and that the plaintiff’s reliance on a “right to be forgotten” amounted to impermissible rewriting of history.
The Bench comprising Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha held that the plaint contained “distinct prayers” of defamation damages and reliefs founded on privacy, dignity and the right to be forgotten It was noted that Article 75 applies only to libel claims, not to the privacy reliefs. It noted that the plaintiff approached the civil court “shortly after” the criminal proceedings culminated in his favour, and therefore limitation or laches did not bar the privacy-based reliefs at the threshold.
On the balance between Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, the Court relied heavily on the Kerala High Court’s larger-Bench judgment in Dejo Kappan,[1] which held that media freedom is not absolute and, in cases of disproportionate reputational harm from continued dissemination, must yield to an individual’s dignity and reputation under Article 21. Applying Dejo Kappan and KS Puttaswamy,[2] the Court framed the issue as one of “constitutional proportionality” rather than a simple convenience-comparison between parties.
The Court found the trial court’s assessment of balance of convenience sound, and reiterated the standard that appellate interference with discretionary interim orders is narrow and reserved for perversity or arbitrariness, which was not present.
In result, the High Court upheld the trial court’s interim injunction, confirming that IE Online and similarly placed defendants must, pending trial, restrain further publication/circulation and de-index/de-reference specified URLs and articles that continue to associate the plaintiff with criminal allegations after his discharge and dismissal of the complaint. The Court stressed that the order is narrowly tailored: it is not a blanket gag on journalistic activity but is confined to particular articles about an exonerated individual, and it does not bar reporting of future developments.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Nachiket Joshi and Ms. Chanan Parwani, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Trideep P., Sr. Advocate with Ms. S. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Jain, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Jha, Mr. Akshit Mago and Ms. E. Kashyap, Advocates for R-1.
Ms. Apar Gupta, Ms. Avanti Deshpande, Mr. Naman Kumar and Ms. Indumugi C., Advocates for R-11.
Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Aishwarya Debadarshini, Ms. Jahanvi Agarwal, Advocates for R-10.
Mr. Manu Seth, Advocate for R-5 and R-6.
[1] Dejo Kappan vs Deccan Herald (2024) 6 KLT 279
[2] KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
