Freedom of speech does not permit trial by media or premature adjudication of guilt during a pending investigation.

The Plaintiff, a Partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) with a two-decade career, filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages

On 11.03.2026, during an IndiGo flight from Delhi to Mumbai, Defendant No. 1 (a journalist) accused the Plaintiff of inappropriate conduct while he was asleep

Before a First Information Report (FIR) was registered, Defendant No. 1 published the Plaintiff’s name, photograph, and professional details on 'X' (formerly Twitter) at 09:39 AM

This post was amplified by Defendant No. 7 (Ms. Richa Chadha, a public figure) with the remark "Make him famous" at 11:50 AM

Subsequently, news platforms (Defendant Nos. 3, 4, and 5) and an Instagram page (under Defendant No. 6) published articles labeling the Plaintiff a "molester" and claiming he was "caught red-handed"

The FIR was eventually registered at 12:27 PM

Consequently, the Plaintiff was suspended from PwC

The Plaintiff alleged that the media narrative exceeded the scope of the FIR and constituted a "trial by media"

The Court sought to balance the competing constitutional rights of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to reputation and fair trial under Article 21

It relied on the principles in Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India (2021), which mandate that media must exercise restraint during ongoing investigations to avoid "character assassination" or "pre-judging guilt"

The Court further applied the doctrine from Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri v. Saket Gokhale (2021) and Gaurav Bhatia v. Naveen Kumar (2024), establishing that reputation is an integral part of the right to life and that public figures/media houses have a "heightened duty of care" when disseminating grave accusations

The standards for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC were also applied

The Court observed that Defendant No. 1's "overhasty public disclosure" of the Plaintiff's identity prior to the FIR suggested an attempt to sensationalize the issue rather than seek legal redress

Notably, there was a discrepancy between the social media post (which named the Plaintiff) and the FIR (which stated the name was discovered only at the police station)

The Court found that news articles and social media posts labeling the Plaintiff a "molester" prematurely adjudicated the matter, violating the presumption of innocence and usurping the function of the competent criminal court

Regarding Defendant No. 7, the Court held that her endorsement of unverified allegations acted as a catalyst for "digital vigilantism," breaching the responsibility of a public figure to verify facts before leveraging a massive platform

The Court concluded that the media narrative had "breached the contours of the FIR," creating an atmosphere of prejudice that resulted in the Plaintiff’s professional suspension

The Court issued an ad-interim injunction directing Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to refrain from publishing similar defamatory allegations until the next hearing

Additionally, the Court ordered 'X' (D-2), Google (D-5), and Meta (D-6) to "forthwith take down/remove" the specific defamatory URLs and posts enumerated in the judgment

The Plaintiff was directed to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within three weeks

The matter was listed for further proceedings on 25.05.2026