IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OMP No. 170 of 2025 in Civil Suit No.16 of 2025 Decided on: 17.03.2026 Pawan Dhall ....Applicant/plaintiff Versus Neeraj Bijalwan .…Non-applicant/defendant Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant/plaintiff: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the non-applicant/defendant: Mr.Vinod K. Gupta, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant application has been preferred by the applicant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) with the prayer to restrain the non-applicant/ defendant from making/posting defamatory,derogatory remarks/ comments/ post qua the applicant/plaintiff and his family on social media during pendency of the main suit. 2. It has been averred in the application that non-applicant/ defendant is unnecessarily harassing, humiliating the applicant/plaintiff just to defame him and lower/dent his reputation in general public and the same is being deliberately done by him with intention to defame the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? applicant/ plaintiff and his family and to lower his image and reputation in the society by circulating false, baseless and absurd massages targeting him and his family members. On 27.10.2024, the non- applicant/ defendant posted/circulated derogatory, baseless, vulgar, false and absurd comments upon the applicant/ plaintiff, his wife and his sister on the Facebook, which is a open account to general public in large. 3. No reply has been filed on behalf of the non- applicant/ defendant to the present application, despite several opportunities, therefore, right to file the same stands closed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and meticulously examined the entire material available on record. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff contended the non-applicant/defendant had posted derogatory, baseless, vulgar, false and absurd comments upon the applicant/plaintiff, his wife and his sister on Facebook knowingly and intentionally just to defame him and to lower/dent his reputation in general public, therefore, he submitted that the non-applicant/ defendant be restrained from posting defamatory/ derogatory remarks/comments upon the applicant/plaintiff and his family on social media. 6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the non-applicant/ defendant contended that the the story is being coined by the 2 applicant/plaintiff only to pressurize the non-applicant/defendant not to depose against him in the criminal cases. He further contended that the non-applicant/defendant has not posted anything on facebook being defamatory and the applicant/plaintiff is in the habit of making false allegations against the non-applicant/defendant. It is submitted that the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) and in a democratic society, freedom of expression is paramount and cannot be curtailed merely due to dissent or criticism. 7. Freedom of speech and expression as envisaged under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India is not an absolute right and the same is subject to the reasonable restrictions provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The position of law as to the prior restraint on the publication has been revisited by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. In Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd vs. Proprietors Of Indian Express, AIR 1989 SC 190, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Court can pass interim orders restraining the publication if the Court finds that there exists a real and imminent danger that the continuance of the publication would result in interference with the administration of justice. It further held that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, but since the exercise of this freedom carries with it duties and responsibilities, it may be subject to such formalities, conditions, 3 restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “14.The law on this aspect has been adverted to in the decision of this Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 1 SCC 641, where at page 659 of the report, Justice Venkataramiah referred to the importance of freedom of Press in a democratic society and the role of Courts. Though the Indian Constitution does not use the expression 'freedom of press' in Article 19 but it is included as one of the guarantees in Article 19 [1] [a]. The freedom of Press, as noted by Venkataramiah J., is one of the around which the greatest and the bitterest of constitutional struggles have been PG NO 225 waged in all countries where liberal constitutions prevail. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 declares the freedom of Press and so does Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, provides as follows: "Article 10-(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprise. (2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." 8. In Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. Union Of India, AIR 1986 SC 872, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that though the freedom of press is an inalienable right, but the same is not 4 absolute and is subject to Article 19 (2), as uncontrolled right to speech leads to anarchism. The Supreme Court observed thus:- “76. I would only like to stress that the freedom of thought and expression, and the freedom of the press are not only valuable freedoms in themselves but are basic to a democratic form of Government which proceeds on the theory that problems of the Government can be solved by the free exchange of thought and by public discussion of the various issues facing the nation. It is necessary to emphasize and one must not forget that the vital importance of freedom of speech and expression involves the freedom to dissent to a free democracy like ours. Democracy relies on the freedom of the press. It is the inalienable right of everyone to comment freely upon any matter of public importance. This right is one of the pillars of individual liberty- freedom of speech, which our Court has always unfailingly guarded. I wish to add that however precious and cherished the freedom of speech is under Art.19(1)(a), this freedom is not absolute and unlimited at all times and under all circumstances but is subject to the restrictions contained in Art. 19(2). That must be so because unrestricted freedom of speech and expression which includes the freedom of the press and is wholly free from restraints, amounts to uncontrolled licence which would lead to disorder and anarchy and it would be hazardous to ignore the vital importance of our social and national interest in public order and security of the State." 9. In the case of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Others vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 603, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down principles governing the passing of the prior restraint order against the publication in some exceptional cases and discussed in detail the exceptions involved. 10. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, in the present case, the applicant/plaintiff admittedly is a renowned businessman and he is having good reputation in the society. As per 5 the applicant/plaintiff, the non-applicant/defendant had posted derogatory, baseless, vulgar, false and absurd comments qua the applicant/plaintiff, his wife and his sister on Facebook knowingly and intentionally just to defame him and to lower/dent his reputation in general public. 11. Needless to state that at the stage of deciding the present application, no conclusive findings can be given in order to ascertain the correctness or falsity of the allegations. However, on perusal of the material available on record, the applicant/plaintiff has been able to make out a strong prima facie case in his favour as in my opinion, the un-verified allegations can tarnish the image and reputation of the applicant/plaintiff in the eyes of public at large, his near and dear ones, his social circle, family, friends and his business. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the applicant/plaintiff as the degree of the prejudice is far more excessive than that of the non-applicant/ defendant. In case interim relief is denied to him, irreparable loss and injury shall ensue to the applicant/plaintiff at this stage and not to the non-applicant/defendant and which cannot be compensated in terms of money if such publications are not postponed. 12. As observed earlier, one's fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. It is not extended to the extent of causing harm to the interest of others and bring down others name 6 and fame. One can swing his umbrella freely as he likes but it comes to an end when it touches other man's nose. 13. Hence, in view of my aforementioned discussion, non- applicant/defendant is restrained from posting defamatory/derogatory remarks/comments/post qua the applicant/plaintiff and his family on social media in any manner and to cause imputation to the applicant/ plaintiff in any manner either by the non-applicant/defendant or through his agents, servants, assignees, family members etc., during the pendency of the present suit. 14. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same has been given only for the purpose of deciding the present application. The application stands disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) March 17, 2026 Judge (V.Himalvi) 7