New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said that passing of a restraining order without hearing the other party curtails freedom of speech and expression, while staying an ex-parte injunction order passed by an Andhra Pradesh district court in the case of YS Sharmila, the President of the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee, and others.
Sharmila moved the apex court assailing the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which declined to interfere with the injunction order passed by the district court. The district court had restrained YS Sharmila, the president of the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee, and others, from speaking against the YSR Congress Party and the Andhra Pradesh chief minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy in relation with the murder of YS Vivekananda Reddy.
Senior advocate Gaurav Aggarwal, representing Sharmila, informed the bench that contempt petitions have been filed against his client alleging violation of the injunction order.
After hearing submissions from Aggarwal, a bench comprising justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta stayed the order, while noting that the district judge passed the restraint order without hearing Sharmila, which resulted in curtailing her freedom of speech and expression.
During the hearing, Sharmila’s counsel cited a recent judgment passed by the apex court in the Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt Ltd and others v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd, where the court had advised the trial court judges’ to refrain from routinely passing pre-trial injunctions restraining freedom of speech and expression.
The counsel argued that a political party moved the court and filed a suit and secured an ex-parte injunction, and this order has the effect of curbing the political speeches of the petitioner during the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.
Stressing that the order has serious ramifications, the apex court it is apparent that the district judge did not provide the opportunity to the defendants to be heard and passed the injunction order. “In effect, the injunction curtails the right of the defendant of freedom of speech and expression," said the bench, while staying the order passed by the Kadapa district court on April 16, 2024.
