INTRODUCTION
In the year 2025, gag orders – official commands restricting the ability to publish or speak concerning the existing dispute – emerged as a prominent yet problematic issue within Indian constitutional law and media law. Gag orders are understood under the rubric of prior restraint, and have considerable implications for free expression principles under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and countervailing rights to reputation, fair trial, and privacy that are codified under Article 21. As observed in recent cases in India, the terrain of gag orders is evolving and becoming contentious: trial courts are issuing broad or blanket orders that are both ex parte, and silencing journalists and online platforms, or civil society actors, whilst High Courts and the Supreme Court are stepping in to restrict or overturn those injunctions. The objective of this legal note is to explore recent high-profile gag order cases, developing doctrinal tests that courts are applying, and the constitutionality of this developing jurisprudence.
BACKGROUND
The concept of a gag order for cases in India derives from defamation and contempt jurisprudence. Courts have been very reluctant to allow prior restraints, although the Supreme Court articulated the principle in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632, in which the Supreme Court held that freedom of press means freedom to publish, except in circumstances that are clearly established by law. Nonetheless, litigants are employing defamation and reputational claims more often to try to secure interim gag orders against investigative journalism. These injunctions may impose prohibitions against further publication or discussion “John Doe” orders, which are injunctions against unidentified or potential publishers, and in some cases, it may even limit targeted intermediaries to remove or de-index allegedly defamatory material. Critics describe these orders as akin to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) that do not intend to vindicate rights but instead settle scores and silence critics. In Bloomberg TV India v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., (2024) 8 SCC 1, the Supreme Court warned that courts may only grant ex parte injunctions against speech if the allegedly defamatory material does not purport to be true and will result in irreparable harm, emphasizing to courts to detain use of prior restraint.
KEYPOINTS
1. MEIL against The News Minute (Spunklane Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd 2025 SCC OnLine TS HC 317)
A trial court issued an ad-interim gag order preventing The News Minute from publishing reports regarding allegations against Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd. (MEIL). The Telangana High Court quashed the gag order, ruling that injunctions without reasons, time limits, or opportunity for hearing the other side are not sustainable. The court explained that ex parte injunctions restraining newspapers and publications violate due process and infringe upon press freedom, especially where there are no reasons or time limits.
2. Adani Enterprises against Journalists (Adani Enterprises Ltd. v. Ravi Nair & Ors. MCA No. DJ/30/2025)
A Rohini court issued what many would conclude is a sweeping order that restrained various journalists from reporting on Adani and directed the removal of past content on September 6, 2025. A Delhi court quashed the gag order issued by the Rohini court with respect to the four journalists identified (Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, Ayush Joshi ) on September 18, 2025, ruling that the journalists had not been heard and that the order was overbroad. The gag restraints placed on senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta were also lifted pending a hearing, and were also found excessive.
3. Accusation of Mass Burials at Dharmasthala (Kudla Rampage v. Harshendra Kumar D. & Others, W.P. No. 22528 of 2025)
A Bengaluru civil court issued a gag order against 337 media outlets, commanding the removal of roughly 8842 online links on accusations of mass burials at the Dharmasthala temple. The Karnataka High Court overturned the gag order, reasoning that it constituted a final conclusion without considering the respondents and reaffirmed the public’s right to know when an issue is a serious concern. The Supreme Court later dismissed the opportunity to hear the case directly, encouraging petitioners to go back to the High Court.
- General Judicial Notices
Judges are increasingly aware that indefinite or excessive gag orders violate freedoms of the press and the public’s right to know. Most recently, the Supreme Court went as far as reasserting the principle found in the 1890 case of Bonnard v. Perryman in Bloomberg v. Zee 2024 SCC OnLine SC 426 the injunction ought to be denied unless the plaintiff’s case was actionable and certain to win, but only when speech is obviously false and malicious.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
1. Judicial Clarifications on Standards
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Bloomberg continues to shape High Courts’ efforts to scale back trial courts’ authority. Courts now require (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, (iii) irreparable harm, and (iv) strict scrutiny when speech is restrained.
2. Rise of Anti-SLAPP Discourse
Legal scholars and commentators justify need for an anti-SLAPP framework in India like other democratic countries did. Several decisions, MEIL and Dharmasthala, demonstrate an escalating awareness in the courts of SLAPP-style litigation for the purpose of silencing dissent.
3. Intermediary Liability
Many gag orders now extend to online platforms, ordering them to take down digital content. Courts remain subject to Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, which confined intermediary liability to instances where a court, or governmental order, directed removal. This principle cropped up in challenges involving overly broad de-indexing- and takedown orders in the year 2025.
4. Comparative Constitutionalism
Indian courts continue to borrow from U.S. and U.K jurisprudence on prior restraint. For example, the often-cited dictum from the U.S., that “prior restraint is the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,” seems to finds synergies in Indian rulings that echo this directive of strict scrutiny of gag orders.
CONCLUSION
The case law on gag orders in 2025 reflects a significant constitutional tension between freedom of expression and rights to reputation. Trial courts have shown a propensity to grant broad ex parte injunctions that sometimes bind hundreds of respondents or cover thousands of links on the web. But the appellate courts, most notably the High Courts, have endorsed constitutional limitations by quashing unreasoned, open-ended injunctions. As India comes to terms with the digital age and the instantaneous dissemination of information, judicial restraint is needed so that courts do not become agents of censorship. The 2025 decisions taken together reaffirm that in a democracy, transparency and accountability must always trump secrecy and silence.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more
than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Anwesha Anant
