A hearsay-based Facebook post written with sarcasm and an apparent intent to demean could not claim the protection ordinarily given to fair comment on a matter of public interest, the Calcutta High Court held while preserving an ex parte defamation injunction.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya authored the Division Bench judgment, with Justice Sandip Kumar De concurring. The appeal challenged a 10 June 2026 order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Second Court at Alipore in Money Suit No. 441 of 2026.
“The mere perception of a person cannot be passed off as truth.”
— Para 21
Why it matters. The Bonnard principle cautions courts against restraining a publication before trial where the defendant intends to prove truth or make fair comment on a public issue. This judgment identifies the boundary: invoking free speech is not enough when the publication’s own words show second-hand allegations and no discernible public-interest purpose.
When Bonnard did not apply
The trial court had restrained Manojit Moulik from publishing or circulating defamatory statements concerning Pranab Roy or his deceased father and directed that the challenged Facebook articles be frozen pending the temporary-injunction application.
Moulik relied on Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, which reiterated the Bonnard rule. The High Court found, however, that the first post itself presented the allegations as something Moulik had heard. Without personal knowledge, the asserted defence of truth was unavailable at that stage.
Moulik was an employee in the Cricket Association of Bengal’s media cell. The post referred to a communication involving the CAB and, in the Bench’s view, contained palpable sarcasm, judgment and insinuation rather than a factual contribution to public debate. The court could not rule out an attempt to protect the association by maligning Roy.
The Bench found no obvious direct link between the second post and Roy. It nevertheless declined to decide the plaint’s truth finally while the temporary-injunction application remained pending. The restraint was directed at access to the impugned articles and further defamatory or disparaging statements; both sides remain free to argue every point below.
The judgment
Moulik undertook to file his written objection by 7 September 2026. Subject to that filing and advance service, the trial judge must hear the injunction application on 8 September and dispose of it by 15 September 2026.
The High Court dismissed F.M.A. 801 of 2026 on contest, affirmed the interim order, disposed of CAN 1 of 2026 and made no order for costs. Its observations are expressly provisional, so the trial court must independently decide whether the posts are defamatory and whether continued restraint is justified.
“the appellant did not have personal knowledge about such statements as per his own admission.”
— Para 17
“Accordingly, the Bonnard principle is not applicable at all.”
— Para 27
“The sarcasm and intended disparagement explicit in the impugned posts itself is sufficient for grant of interim injunction.”
— Para 31