The Supreme Court cautioned against recognizing SLAPP suits in a May 2024 judgment.
The court highlighted the potential of using prolonged litigation to prevent free speech and public participation.
On September 18, 2025, a District Judge stayed a civil court's ex-parte injunction order against journalists, citing a lack of reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Supreme Court emphasized that protecting journalistic expression is a constitutional mandate.
Detailed Insights:
SLAPP suits, or Strategic Litigation against Public Participation, are often initiated by entities with significant economic power to suppress media or civil society .
The Supreme Court has stated that pre-trial, ex-parte injunctions can be detrimental to published material before allegations are proven .
Chief Justice Chandrachud invoked the Bonnard standard, stating that interim injunctions in defamation suits should only be given in exceptional situations .
The court outlined a three-fold test for trial judges before granting injunctions: establishing a prima facie case of defamation, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable harm from publication .
The Supreme Court warned against mechanically applying the three-fold test, especially in cases involving journalistic pieces .
Key Concepts Involved:
SLAPP Suit: Litigation used to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with legal defense costs until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
Ex-parte Injunction: A court order issued without all parties being present, often without the defendant being notified.
Bonnard Standard: A legal principle that interim injunctions in defamation cases should only be granted in exceptional circumstances where the content is likely to be proven false.