Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 06.01.2026 vs Of on 9 January, 2026
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1 2026:HHC:3291 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA OMP No. 1236 of 2025 in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2025 .
Reserved on: 06.01.2026 Date of decision: 09.01.2026 _____________________________________________________ Dr. Rajeev Bindal .....Applicant/plaintiff.
Versus of Kapil Garg @ Monty Garg ......Non-applicant/defendant.
________________________________________________ Coram rt The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
1Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the applicant: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karun Negi and Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocates.
For non-applicant: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
The instant application has been preferred by the applicant (plaintiff) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Section 151 CPC with the prayer that the non-applicant be restrained from circulating, publishing, posting articles, news items on his facebook account, whatsapp, twitter or any other social media platforms concerning the applicant in any manner and to cause imputation to the applicant 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:27 :::CIS 22026:HHC:3291 ) in any manner during the pendency of the instant civil suit.
2. It is averred in the application that the applicant was .
Speaker of Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha from January, 2018.
He is also an elected member of Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Nahan constituency for two consecutive terms and earlier he was member of Legislative Assembly from Solan of Constituency. It is further averred that the respondent is councilor of Municipal Council Nahan, District Sirmour, and he is actively rt involved in the activities of a political party and due to political differences with the applicant and to create false narrative against him, the non-applicant makes imputation against him on social media by using facebook account in the name of Monty Garg and by making false representation in this regard, just to tarnish the reputation of the applicant in the High Command in BJP circle, amongst relatives, friends, nears and dears and the general public at large. As per the applicant, the non-applicant is indulging in unfair and malafide tactics and acts to gain political mileage and for doing so he is raising unfounded allegations of corruption against him to harm his reputation.
3. The non-applicant, by filing reply to the application, raised preliminary objections, viz., maintainability of the application ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:27 :::CIS 3 2026:HHC:3291 ) and the same being bad in law, bad for mis-joinder/non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the non-applicant denied that he is .
making false narrative against the applicant so as to tarnish his reputation in the High Command in the BJP Circle, amongst the relatives, friends, nears and dears and the general public at large.
He also denied that he is indulging in unfair and malafide tactics to of gain political mileage. He admitted that there are political differences between the applicant and him and the instant rt applicant has been filed just to harass and create pressure upon the non-applicant, as he wants to contest forth coming Municipal Council Elections from MC Nahan and there is every likelihood of his success. Lastly, the non-applicant prayed for dismissal of the instant application.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff contended the defendant has been raising unfounded allegations of corruption against him on his Facebook account knowingly and intentionally, which are not genuine and authentic and which has tarnished his reputation and integrity, therefore, he submitted that the defendant may be restrained from circulating, publishing, posting articles, news items on Facebook account(s) maintained by him or on any other social media.
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:27 :::CIS 42026:HHC:3291 )
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the non-applicant contended that the instant civil suit and the application is an .
outcome of political vendetta and also to harass the non-applicant, as there are political differences between the applicant and non-
applicant. He also contended that the applicant wants to gain political mileage, therefore, he has filed the instant suit and the of application. He further submitted that the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) rt
(a) and in a democratic society, freedom of expression is paramount and cannot be curtailed merely due to dissent or criticism.
6. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the parties and meticulously examined the entire material available on record.
7. Freedom of speech and expression as envisaged under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India is not an absolute right and the same is subject to the reasonable restrictions provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.The position of law as to the prior restraint on the publication has been revisited by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. In Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd vs. Proprietors Of Indian Express, AIR ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:27 :::CIS 5 2026:HHC:3291 ) 1989 SC 190 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Court can pass interim orders restraining the publication if the Court finds .
that there exists a real and imminent danger that the continuance of the publication would result in interference with the administration of justice. It further held that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, but since the exercise of this freedom of carries with it duties and responsibilities, it may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed rt by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgement reads as under:
"14.The law on this aspect has been adverted to in the decision of this Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 1 SCC 641, where at page 659 of the report, Justice Venkataramiah referred to the importance of freedom of Press in a democratic society and the role of Courts. Though the Indian Constitution does not use the expression 'freedom of press' in Article 19 but it is included as one of the guarantees in Article 19 [1] [a]. The freedom of Press, as noted by Venkataramiah J., is one of the around which the greatest and the bitterest of constitutional struggles have been PG NO 225 waged in all countries where liberal constitutions prevail. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 declares the freedom of Press and so does Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, provides as follows:
"Article 10-(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:27 :::CIS 6 2026:HHC:3291 ) cinema enterprise.
(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are .
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
of
8. In Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. Union Of India, AIR 1986 SC 872, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rt emphasized that though the freedom of press is an inalienable right, but the same is not absolute and is subject to Article 19 (2), as uncontrolled right to speech leads to anarchism. The Supreme Court observed thus:
"76.I would only like to stress that the freedom of thought and expression, and the freedom of the press are not only valuable freedoms in themselves but are basic to a democratic form of Government which proceeds on the theory that problems of the Government can be solved by the free exchange of thought and by public discussion of the various issues facing the nation. It is necessary to emphasize and one must not forget that the vital importance of freedom of speech and expression involves the freedom to dissent to a free democracy like ours. Democracy relies on the freedom of the press. It is the inalienable right of everyone to comment freely upon any matter of public importance. This right is one of the pillars of individual liberty- freedom of speech, which our Court has always unfailingly guarded. I wish to add that however precious and cherished the freedom of speech is under Art.19(1)(a), this freedom is not absolute and unlimited at all times and under all circumstances ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:27 :::CIS 7 2026:HHC:3291 ) but is subject to the restrictions contained in Art. 19(2). That must be so because unrestricted freedom of speech and expression which includes the freedom of the press and is wholly free from restraints, amounts to uncontrolled licence .
which would lead to disorder and anarchy and it would be hazardous to ignore the vital importance of our social and national interest in public order and security of the State."
9. In the case of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Others vs. Securities and Exchange Board of of India & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 603, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles governing the passing of the prior rt restraint order against the publication in some exceptional cases and discussed in detail the exceptions involved.
10. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, in the present case, the plaintiff admittedly was the Speaker of Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and was an elected Member of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly for two successive terms and had also remained as Health Minister of Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiff is well known figure in the society and at present he is the President of State Unit of a National Political Party. As per the plaintiff, the defendant has been raising unfounded allegations of corruption against him knowing fully well that the same are false and the defendant has indulged in ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:27 :::CIS 8 2026:HHC:3291 ) tarnishing reputation and integrity of the plaintiff in the estimation of public at large, political circle, relatives, friends social circle and .
the High Command of his own political party by publishing defamatory and derogatory statements on his Facebook account maintained by him with the sole motive to degrade and demean the reputation of the plaintiff in the estimation of public at large and of with the motive to gain some political mileage.
11. On the other hand, the defendant has denied such rt allegations levelled by the plaintiff. It has been averred by the defendant that the suit/application filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and fundamental right of speech of the defendant cannot be curtailed by such false, frivolous and vexatious suit/application. It has been denied that the defendant is making false narrative against the plaintiff so as to tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff. It has also been denied that the defendant has been indulging in posting defamatory and unfounded allegations in his Facebook account maintained by him against the plaintiff.
12. Needless to state that at the stage of deciding the present application, no conclusive findings can be given in order to ascertain the correctness or falsity of the allegations. However, on perusal of the material available on record, the plaintiff has been ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:27 :::CIS 9 2026:HHC:3291 ) able to make out a strong prima facie case in his favour as in my opinion, the un-verified allegations can tarnish the image and .
reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of public at large, his near and dear ones, his social circle, family, friends and his political circle.
The balance of the convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff as the degree of the prejudice is far more excessive than that of the of defendant. In case interim relief is denied to him, irreparable loss and injury shall ensue to the plaintiff at this stage and not to the rt defendant and which cannot be compensated in terms of money if such publications are not postponed.
13. As observed earlier, one's fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. It is not extended to the extent of causing harm to the interest of others and bring down others name and fame. One can swing his umbrella freely as he likes but it comes to an end when it touches other man's nose. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments based on Article 19(i)(a) of the Constitution of India made by the learned Counsel for the defendant cannot be accepted.
14. Hence, in view of my aforementioned discussion, non-
applicant/defendant is restrained from circulating, publishing, ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:27 :::CIS 10 2026:HHC:3291 ) posting articles, news items on Facebook account(s), maintained by him under different ID(s), Whatsapp, Twitter or any other social .
media and media platforms concerning the applicant/plaintiff in any manner and to cause imputation to the applicant/plaintiff in any manner either by non-applicant/defendant or through his agents, servants, assignees, family members etc., during the pendency of of the present suit.
15. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this rt order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same has been given only for the purpose of deciding the present application.
The application stands disposed of.
( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 9th January, 2026 (raman) ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:27 :::CIS