Preventive restraint on press publication requires real and imminent danger; injunction ended once debenture prejudice no longer appeared immediate.

Preventive restraint on newspaper publication is justified only where the apprehended prejudice to pending proceedings is real, imminent, substantial and immediate. The Court balanced freedom of speech and the press under Article 19(1)(a) against permissible restrictions under Article 19(2), including contempt of court, and applied the test of balance of convenience. As the debenture issue had already been oversubscribed and the risk of withdrawal of subscriptions had diminished, the feared prejudice was no longer sufficient to continue the injunction. The restraint was therefore treated as unnecessary and was not continued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim injunction restraining newspaper publication on the legality and validity of consents, approvals and permissions relating to the debenture issue should continue.

Analysis: The injunction was sought to prevent publication said to prejudice proceedings pending before the Court and to protect the administration of justice. The Court balanced the freedom of speech and expression and freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) against the permissible restrictions in Article 19(2), including contempt of court. Applying the test of real and imminent danger and balance of convenience, the Court held that preventive restraint on publication is justified only where the apprehended prejudice is substantial and immediate. Once the debenture issue had been oversubscribed and the immediate risk of withdrawal of subscriptions had diminished, the apprehension that publication would frustrate the issue was no longer strong enough to justify continued restraint.

Conclusion: The injunction was held to be unnecessary any further and was not continued.

---