Orissa High Court
Bhakata Charan Das vs Focus Plus Television Pvt. Ltd on 27 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.259 of 2026
Bhakata Charan Das ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Subir Palit, Sr. Adv.
along with
Anand Prakash Das
-versus-
Focus Plus Television Pvt. Ltd., ..... Opposite Parties
BBSR & Ors.
Represented by Adv. -
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
27.02.2026 Order No. 02. I.A No.257 of 2026
1. Heard Sri Subir Palit, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri A.P.Das, learned counsel representing the Petitioner. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.
2. By filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.01 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar has approached this Court seeking urgent intervention of this Court in the matter of grant of ad-interim injunction against the Opposite Parties not to publish, circulate any defamatory material against the present Petitioner. Along with C.S No.01 of 2025 which was filed claiming damages Page 1 of 16. for defamation caused to the petitioner, the plaintiff-Petitioner filed an I.A seeking ad-interim relief under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. The plaintiff-Petitioner had also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC praying for ex-parte ad-interim relief against the defendant-Opposite Parties. Such application of the plaintiff-Petitioner having been rejected vide order dated 06.11.2025, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present CMP application.
3. The factual matrix as involved in the present CMP application on a narrow compass is that the Petitioner, who happens to be a law graduate and is a senior politician, is at present the President of Odisha Pradesh Congress Committee. The Petitioner has represented the Kalahandi Lok Sabha Constituency as a Member of Parliament. He was also a minister for the Union of India. He was also elected to the State Legislative Assembly as an INC candidate. From 2009 to 2014 he had represented the Kalahandi Lok Sabha Constituency as a Member of Parliament on being elected on an INC ticket.
4. On perusal of the CMP application it appears that the Petitioner filed a suit for defamation bearing CS No.1 of 2025 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar for defamation and claiming Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores) as punitive damage and compensatory damage of Rs.25,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crores) on the ground that the video and news clippings either uploaded or telecasted in the social media platform like "YouTube" and "Facebook" by the Defendants has seviourly tarnished the image of the plaintiff- Petitioner and that such defamation has caused mental agony and Page 2 of 16. harassment to the Petitioner. In the suit, he has also prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants thereby restraining them from further circulating and uploading the offending videos and news clippings against the plaintiff and his family members.
5. Along with the suit, the Petitioner filed an I.A bearing I.A No.01 of 2025 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC with a prayer for ad-interim injunction against the defendants-Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 restraining the Opposite Parties permanently from further circulating and uploading offending video and news clippings in the social media platform against the petitioner and his family members. An application was also filed under Order 39 Rule 3 with a prayer for hearing of the application for ad-interim relief ex-parte.
6. The application bearing I.A No.01 of 2025 along with the application under Order 39 Rule 3 was taken up for hearing on 06.11.2025 by the learned trial court. In course of hearing of such application, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon several Supreme Court judgments to impress upon the learned trial court that the image of the Petitioner has been seviourly tarnished by the offending videos/ podcasts/ video clips circulated widely from the social media platform by the defendants. The learned trial court while taking note of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had opined that the court while considering such application is required to strike a balance between the merits of the matter and the right to freedom of expression guaranteed to the citizens under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the learned trial court has held that the limits of the right conferred under Article 19 of the Constitution of India can only be ascertained after Page 3 of 16. hearing both parties. It has also observed that the present matter being politically in nature, there exist a possibility of suppression of material facts at the initial stage. Finally, the learned trial court refused to pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC without giving opportunity of hearing to the Opposite Parties. Hence, the petition under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC filed by the Petitioner was rejected.
7. While assailing the impugned rejection order dated 06.11.2025 in the present CMP application, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner made an attempt to demonstrate before this Court how seviourly the image and reputation of the Petitioner and his family members have been tarnished by wide circulation of offending materials/ video clips/ podcasts in the social media platform owned and managed by the defendants. At the outset, Mr.Palit, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner alleged that without first verifying the genuineness and truthfulness of the news, the offending materials including video clips and podcasts have been allowed to be uploaded to the social media platforms. Further contended that the materials which have been uploaded in the social media platform are out and out false and it does not contain an eye of truth. Moreover, the Petitioner being the President of the Odisha Pradesh Congress Committee is being targeted by his rival political parties and different social media groups owing their allegiance to different political entities.
8. In course of his argument, Mr.Palit, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner placed his reliance on the facts stated in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. He also filed soft copies of the Page 4 of 16. defamatory materials uploaded in the social media platform in a Pen Drive before this Court. Such Pen Drive has been taken on record and after verification of the genuineness of such digital material, the same shall be taken into consideration by this Court at a later stage. However, on a prima facie examination of the allegations made the body of the CMP application it appears that such materials are would enough to destroy and tarnish the image of any political leader belonging to any political outfit of this country.
9. In the CMP application it has also been stated by the Petitioner that the Petitioner being aggrieved by such malicious and defamatory conduct of the Opposite Parties lodged a complaint before the Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Commission, State Election Commission, Odisha as well as the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Khurda, it stated that an FIR has also been registered at various police stations across the State by his followers under the provisions of BNS, 2023 and the IT Act, 2005. Since no tangible action was taken by all these authorities where the Petitioner has lodged complaint, the Petitioner was compelled to approach the common law forum by filing a civil suit not only claiming damages for defamation but also for permanent injunction restraining the Opposite Parties to cause further damage to the image of the Petitioner.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited and Others vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprizes Limited reported Page 5 of 16. in (2025) 1 SCC 741. In the abovenoted reported case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was considering an order granting ad- interim ex-parte injunction restraining the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to take down the Article that was published on their online platform and restraining the appellant from posting, circulating or publishing Articles in respect of the Respondent-Plaintiff. The order passed by the learned trial court is upheld by a Single Judge Bench of the High Court. Eventually, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the trial judge as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on the ground that the courts while considering the ad-interim application and while arriving at a prima facie case have failed to discuss the materials on record and, as such, it was held that the orders passed by the courts are bad due to non-application of mind. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also laid emphasis on the fact that the threefold test for grant of injunction which is treated as MANTRA for any court while considering an application for grant of injunction is not the sole criteria basing upon which injunction should be granted or refused. It has further observed that the courts are also required to look into the facts on the basis of which an injunction has been shocked and in the absence of such consideration either by the Trial Court or the High Court, the outcome is to be treated as a nullity.
11. It is apt to mention here that in the abovenoted judgement in Bloomberg Television's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles for grant of ad-interim ex-parte inunction. While laying down the principle of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also referred to the judgment in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das reported in (1994) Page 6 of 16. 4 SCC 225. In the contest of grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction. In Morgan Stanley's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down 7 principles which are quoted hereinbelow:-
(a) whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to plaintiff;
(b) whether the refusal or ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;
(c) the court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained so that the making of improper order against a party in his absence is prevented;
d) the court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for same time and in such circumstances it will not grant ex parte injunction;
(e) the court would expect a party applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application.
(f) even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a limited period of time.
(g) General principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the court."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid emphasis on the right to freedom of speech which is a fundamental right guarantee to every citizen under the Constitution of India as well as the right to reputation and privacy of a person. In the said context, reliance has been placed on the judgment of R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1994) 6 SCC 632. Moreover, in a case of this nature concerning defamation by Media Platform and/ or journalist, an additional consideration of balancing the fundamental right between the two parties is to be resorted to by Page 7 of 16. the courts while considering ex-parte ad-interim injunction. It has also emphasised the constitutional mandate of protecting journalistic expression which cannot be understated under any circumstances and the duty of the court to tread cautiously while grant pre-trial interim injunctions. In the aforesaid context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that the standard to be followed may be borrowed from the decision in Bonnard vs. Perryman reported in (1891) 2 Ch 269 (CA). The "Bonnard standard" laid down by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), has acquired the status of a common law principle for the grant of interim injunctions in defamation suits. The Court of Appeal in Bonnard's case (supra) held as follows:-
"But it is obvious that the subject-matter of an action for defamation is so special as to require exceptional caution in exercising the jurisdiction to interfere by injunction before the trial of an action to prevent an anticipated wrong. The right of free speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should possess, and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment, so long as no wrongful act is done; and, unless an alleged libel is untrue, there is no wrong committed; but, on the contrary, often a very wholesome act is performed in the publication and repetition of an alleged libel. Until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at all has been infringed; and the importance of leaving free speech unfettered is a strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of interim injunctions."
13. In para-9 of the judgment in Bloomberg Television's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid emphasis on the concept of "SLAPP suits". The term "SLAPP" stands for Page 8 of 16. "Strategic Litigation against Public Participation" and is an umbrella term used to refer to litigation predominantly initiated by entities that wield immense economic power against members of the media or civil society, to prevent the public from knowing about or participating in important affairs in the public interest. It has also been observed that the grant of an interim injunction before the trial commences, often acts as a "death sentence" to the material sought to be published, well before the allegations have been proven. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Court that while granting ad interim injunctions in defamation suits, the potential of using prolonged litigation to prevent free speech and public participation must also be kept in mind by courts.
14. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Malabar Gold and Diamonds Limited vs. Meta Platforms Inc reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3449 was considering a case for grant of ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff for pulling down the posts, list of which along with URL was already provided in the plaint. The defendant on whose platform defamatory materials is being published against the plaintiff, were also added as parties to the suit and an injunctory relief was also prayed against such platforms restraining them from permitting publication of any further defamatory material against the plaintiff qua the influencer arrangement made by it. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court on a cursory look at the materials placed before it was pleased to grant ad interim protection in favour of the plaintiff as has been indicated in para-6 of the order dated 29.09.2025.
15. In Gaurav Bhatia vs. Samajwadi Party Media Cell & Ors. in CS(OS) No.679 of 2025 with the connected I.A, the Hon'ble Page 9 of 16. Delhi High Court was also called upon to adjudicate an identical issue and grant of ad interim ex parte injunction under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC against the defendants restraining them to publish abusive and defamatory statements and contents posted by them in the social media platform of the defendants. In the said case, the Petitioner, who was a national spokesperson of Bharatiya Janata Party, one of the largest national political parties sought for restrain order against the defendants not to publish abusive and defamatory contents and materials against him in the social media platform, as well as in the TV news channels. Upon a careful consideration of the allegation made by the plaintiff-petitioner in that case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, referring to a single bench judgment of that court in T.V. Today Network Limited vs. News Laundry Media Private Limited, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Delhi 2233, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bloomberg Television's case (supra), which has been succinctly discussed by this court in the preceding paragraph, was inclined to grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
16. Reverting back to the issue involved in the present CMP application, this court is of the considered view that the prayer for ex-parte ad-interim injunction made by the plaintiff-petitioner, which was rejected by the learned trial court on the grounds stated in the impugned order, requires reconsideration in view of the legal position as has been analyzed in the preceding paragraphs. While considering the application for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction, this court is fully aware of the limitations in exercise of such power by this court. Additionally, keeping in view the nature of the dispute involved in the present CMP application, this court Page 10 of 16. is also required to strike a balance between the rival constitutional rights of freedom of speech and right to privacy of the contesting parties. Taking into consideration the nature of the dispute involved in the present CMP application, this court is required to tread cautiously while considering the prayer of the plaintiff for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant opposite parties. While considering the prayer of the plaintiff petitioner, this court is not only required to apply the three mantras meant for the courts to be kept in mind while considering the application for injunction, but also to apply the "Bonnard standard" as has been propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bloomberg Television' case (supra). Therefore, this Court is required to strike a balance between the fundamental right to speech of every citizen as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, with that of the right to privacy and dignity of a citizen which emanates from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
17. Before adverting to adjudicate the issue at hand, this Court would like to put it first that the present case stands in a little different footing on facts from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bloomberg Television' case (supra). In Bloomberg Television' case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was called upon to examine the validity of grant of ad-interim ex-parte injunction where the allegation was publication of a defamatory article by a media house. In the present case, the allegation is against the defendants in either uploading or allowing their social media platforms to be used by persons to target the plaintiff petitioner. It is true that the plaintiff-petitioner is a seasoned politician and now he is the President of the OPCC. Because of his Page 11 of 16. political stature and the position he is holding in his political party, he is expected to face a lot of allegation and criticism. Such criticism is the hallmark of any vibrant democracy. Therefore, it is all the more important for this court to go into the details of the allegation made against the present petitioner in the alleged defamatory video clips, materials and podcasts circulated in the social media platform.
18. On perusal of the allegation made in the CMP application, it appears that the video clips and materials which were uploaded in the social media platform like YouTube and Facebook and basing upon such unproven materials. Several TV telecasts have been made, this court is of the prima facie view that the same are abusive and derogatory in nature. Moreover, by no stretch of imagination the same can be construed to be a constructive criticism which is protected by the freedom of speech as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Some of the allegations are too personal and are criminal in nature. It also appears that the allegations which have been made in those derogatory materials are judgmental in nature without the factual foundation or materials to support such allegation. Of course, this court is aware of the fact that the defendants have not yet appeared and they have every right to rebut the allegation made by the plaintiff in his plaint as well as in the application, however, this court while considering an application for ex parte ad interim injunction is to be guided by the principle as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bloomberg Television's case (supra) as well as in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund's case (supra).
19. With regard to existence of a prima facie case, this court on Page 12 of 16. a plain reading of the allegation and upon a close scrutiny of the materials alleged to be abusive and derogatory is of the considered view that the Petitioner has made out a prima facie case for this court to examine such material. Allegations like calling the Petitioner as the "DALAL", accepting bribe for grant of party ticket, he has been abusing the party workers, he has looted Rs.60,00,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty crores) in the name of Kalahandi development and accumulated properties at Chhattisgarh and that he is not paying salary to Congress Bhavan staff while enjoying a lavish lifestyle and has booked three rooms in a five-star hotel throughout the year appears to be definitely derogatory and not supported by any material. The same can by no stretch of imagination be construed as constructive criticism of the conduct of the Petitioner so as to be protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. As such, this court found a strong prima facie case in favor of the petitioner, the same is of course subject to the rebuttal to be given by the defendants after their appearance. Similarly, unless the defendants are restrained to publish further similar material against the plaintiff petitioner and they are directed to pull down the materials already uploaded, the same would definitely cause irreparable loss and serious mischief to the plaintiff. This is of course without prejudice to the right of the defendants to upload such materials again in the event this court holds the same to be not derogatory or abusive. However, the materials as it is, according to this court, is likely to cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner. Further the refusal of ex parte injunction at this stage before appearance of the defendants would cause greater injustice to the plaintiff than the grant of it would involve.
Page 13 of 16.20. The plaintiff has pleaded that after such derogatory and abusive materials were uploaded in the social media platform, he had approached various authorities including the Election Commission of India. It has also been stated that the plaintiff approached the police by lodging an FIR against the defendants. However, no steps were taken by such agencies to prevent and protect the image of the petitioner being tarnished by publication of the materials in the social media platform. Thereafter, the petitioner was compelled to approach the common law forum by filing the suit along with this application for grant of ad interim ex parte injunction. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the plaintiff- petitioner has not approached this court with a good faith and clean hand. Before approaching the common law forum he had taken reasonable steps to protect his and his family's image.
21. On a careful analysis of the facts pleaded by the plaintiff, this court observed that certain derogatory materials were uploaded in the social media platform without any foundation for such baseless allegation. As it is well known that anybody and everybody can upload any material freely in the social media platform targeting a particular individual or institution without owning any responsibility or without being bothered by the liability that could accrue for such conduct, it has become a fashion and trend and the same is being used by various rival groups as a weapon against their rivals to tarnish the image of the other. The situation at the moment is absolutely unregulated and uncontrolled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts in the country have expressed their anguish and anxiety with regard to the functioning of the social media platforms in this country. True it is, the fundamental right of freedom of expression Page 14 of 16. of every citizen is required to be protected, however, at the same time this court cannot close its eyes while the right of privacy and dignity of a citizen is being openly abused and compromised in any manner. The time has come to lay down a standard operating procedure for all these social media platforms to be strictly observed, respecting both the right of freedom of expression as well as the right of privacy and dignity of a person. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this court is of the view that order of the learned trial court requires further examination in presence of the defendants. However, till appearance of the defendants, the plaintiff-petitioner is required to be protected by grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction. Accordingly, this court directs as follows:
The opposite party defendants are hereby restrained to publish any further video clip/ reel/ podcast/ news involving the plaintiff which are connected to the subject matter of dispute in the suit. The opposite parties are further restrained not to continue with the telecast, podcast, public display, circulation of the materials against the present Petitioner, allegedly defamatory in nature and directly connected to the allegation made by the plaintiff any further, any such materials which are already available on the social media platform of the defendants be immediately pulled down, subject to further order by this court.
22. The aforesaid interim order shall remain in force for a period of two months or till appearance of the defendants in this case.
23. List this I.A for further consideration after appearance of the defendants.
Page 15 of 16. CMP No.259 of 202624. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.
25. Upon a careful consideration of the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and on a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 6.11.2025 passed in I.A No.1 of 2025 arising out of CS No.1 of 2025, this Court is of the view that the matter requires further consideration in presence of the defendants. Hence issue notice to the defendants by Speed Post with AD fixing a short returnable date.
26. Requisites for issuance of notice be filed within three working days.
27. List this CMP on 6th of April, 2026.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Mar-2026 18:59:20 Page 16 of 16.