The Double-Edged Sword Of Injunctions: Strategic Delays And Speech Suppression In Indian Jurisprudence
- IJLLR Journal
- Feb 3
- 1 min read
Sharmishta P Raj, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
ABSTRACT
Based on socio-legal and socio-anthropological techniques used, on average in 2021, gag orders favoured privileged persons 72.7% of the time, with 40 million cases pending in the courts creating significant backlogs for the judiciary, and most of the applicants seeking the orders that prioritise their interests tend to come from historically silenced communities. The misuse of injunctions in India, notably through Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), have furnished a chilling effect of injunctions on free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Landmark cases, including Bloomberg v. Zee Entertainment (2024) and Tata Sons v. Greenpeace, demonstrates how ex parte injunctions and directions to maintain the status quo are weaponised to silence dissent, investigative journalism, and public-interest advocates. The comparative examples of the UK, US, and Japan reveal the systemic flaws in the Indian legal regime in restraining speech and expression and examples of alternative frameworks to trial the allegations of SLAPP behaviour, including the availability of anti-SLAPP laws and objective/factor analyses for injunctive relief.
