Bonnard principle protects public-interest criticism as Calcutta High Court lifts ex parte gag order on influencer’s warnings about heavy metals in Zandu product

The appellants, a social-media influencer and his company, challenged an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining them from displaying, airing, publishing or making statements concerning Emami’s product, “Zandu Ashwagandha Gold Plus”.

The appellants had obtained the product anonymously and submitted it for testing by accredited laboratories.

The reports allegedly found that the product contained excessive levels of lead and mercury and had a low Withanolide content.

After communicating the test results to Emami and receiving no response within the appellants’ stipulated 24-hour period, the appellants uploaded a video referring to the product in terms including “poison in a bottle” and “cancerous”.

Emami claimed that the product was a licensed Ayurvedic proprietary medicine and a herbo-metallic formulation, and contended that the appellants had applied incorrect standards and lacked the requisite expertise.

The Trial Court nevertheless granted an ex parte injunction on 3 May 2025.

The appellants preferred the present appeal, principally relying on truth, fair comment, public interest and freedom of speech.

1. Whether the Bonnard principle, requiring exceptional caution before granting a pre-trial injunction in defamation proceedings where the defence of truth or fair comment is raised, applies in Indian jurisprudence.

2. Whether the appellants had shown sufficient prima facie material supporting the defence of truth so that the ex parte injunction could not be sustained.

3. Whether the impugned order satisfied the additional requirements governing ex parte interim injunctions, including the principles in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das .

The Court applied Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, protecting freedom of speech and expression, subject to lawful restrictions.

It adopted the Bonnard principle from Bonnard v. Perryman and Fraser v. Evans , under which publication should not ordinarily be restrained before trial where the defendant relies on justification or fair comment, unless the defence is clearly bound to fail.

Relying on Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. , the Court held that an ex parte injunction in a defamation action should be granted only in exceptional cases where the impugned content is malicious or palpably false, or where the defence would undoubtedly fail at trial.

The Court also applied the usual interim-injunction principles, including those stated in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das .

On the merits, it considered the permissible heavy-metal limits under Part II, Volume II of the Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India, which prescribed limits of 10 ppm for lead and 1 ppm for mercury.

The Court further held that the ASCI influencer guidelines primarily concern advertisements involving a material connection between the advertiser and influencer, and do not automatically apply to every product-related publication.

The Court held that Bloomberg Television had authoritatively affirmed the Bonnard principle in India; therefore, the Trial Court was required to determine not merely whether Emami had shown a prima facie case, but whether the appellants’ defence of truth was certain to fail.

The laboratory reports of Eurofins and Eureka were not specifically challenged as to the laboratories’ credentials or authenticity, and they recorded lead and mercury levels exceeding the limits prescribed for formulations under the API.

The Court found that the classifications used in the reports and the absence of the brand name or batch number did not, at the interlocutory stage, conclusively invalidate the reports; any dispute regarding sample identity or testing methodology required a full trial.

Emami’s expert material did not deny the presence of lead and mercury but sought to explain it by reference to herbo-metallic ingredients such as Swarna Bhasma and Yashad Bhasma.

This material did not eliminate the appellants’ arguable defence that the recorded levels exceeded applicable API limits.

The Court also found that the appellant’s stated qualifications were sufficient, at the prima facie stage, to comment on health and nutrition, and that the impugned video had not been shown to be sponsored or to constitute an advertisement under the ASCI guidelines.

Consequently, the content could not be treated as palpably false or malicious, and the Trial Court’s injunction amounted to an impermissible prior restraint on public-interest speech.

It held that the Bonnard principle applies in Indian defamation proceedings and that the appellants’ defence of truth was sufficiently supported by the laboratory reports and other materials; Emami had not established that the defence was bound to fail at trial.

CAN 1 of 2025 was consequently disposed of, with no order as to costs.

The observations were declared tentative and not binding on the Trial Court while deciding the injunction application or the suit.

The subsequent prayer for stay of the appellate judgment was refused because it would have revived the gag order and restricted dissemination of information concerning the product.