Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for HT, argued that the interim order was passed without considering the test laid down while deciding a journalist’s freedom speech in relation to a public figure.
Sibal said that the single-judge had passed the order without giving them time to file a reply and failed to appreciate the test that Taneja and other plaintiffs need to prove malice on part of the media house to order removal of an article.
“You may agree with it or disagree but is this an article that is generating public debate. Therefore, in order to stifle this debate, he needs to show malice. The question, therefore, is whether this test was applied in this case,” Sibal argued.
Source: Barandbench
