Thereafter, the CJI asked the counsel for Zee if the High Court and trial court orders had demonstrated a prima facie application of mind.
“Writing five pages does not mean application of mind, you see,” the CJI added.
In response, Zee’s counsel stated that the article was per se defamatory and false.
The CJI, however, reiterated that injunction orders must be reasoned.
“We are hearing an appeal. Just saying ‘prima facie’, ‘irreparable injury’, ‘balance of convenience’ does not make a reasoned order,” the CJI said.
The Court proceeded to set aside the High Court and trial court orders since it was not convinced that the courts have properly applied the three-fold test for the grant of an injunction.
The three-fold test here refers to whether (i) a prima facie case has been made out to warrant a restraining order or an injunction order, (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the person seeking an injunction order and (iii) whether irreparable legal injury would ensue if an injunction order is not granted.
Source: Barandbench
