Prior restraint on telecast requires real and substantial prejudice to a fair trial, not speculation.

Prior restraint on a telecast is justified only on a demonstrable real and substantial danger of prejudice to pending proceedings; Article 19(1)(a) may yield to the right to a fair trial, but not on speculation. The Court noted no prima facie derogatory attack on the respondents' character and no prima facie discussion of the merits in the programme, which was described as a dramatic rendering of evidence already in the public domain. Because the ad interim injunction had been granted without first examining the transcript or viewing the proposed broadcast to assess actual prejudice, the restraint could not be sustained on the material before the Court and was set aside for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether an ad interim injunction restraining telecast of a programme concerning a concluded criminal trial could be sustained on the ground that the broadcast would prejudice the respondents' right to a fair trial and justify prior restraint on freedom of speech and expression.

Analysis: Freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and may yield to reasonable restrictions, including the need to protect the administration of justice and the right to a fair trial. However, restraint on publication or telecast is justified only where there is a demonstrable real and substantial danger of prejudice to pending proceedings. The material on record did not show any prima facie derogatory attack on the respondents' character or any prima facie discussion of the merits of the case. The programme was a dramatic rendering of evidence already in the public domain, and the ad interim injunction had been granted without first examining the transcript or viewing the proposed telecast to assess any actual prejudice.

Conclusion: The injunction could not be sustained on the material before the Court; the order granting ad interim restraint was set aside, and the matter was left for fresh consideration on the merits of the interim injunction application.

---