Avinash Azad
In a significant development, the Court of Hina Parveen Goney, 4th Additional Munsiff, Jammu, has vacated the interim order earlier passed on October 31, 2024, which had restrained Dr. Vikas Sharma—former President of Jammu University Research Scholars Executive Association (JURSEA) and currently a Research Scholar in Buddhist Studies at the University—from making public statements or media comments against the functioning of Jammu University and its officials.
The interim directions had been issued in a civil suit filed by the University through its Registrar, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Dr. Sharma for allegedly spreading false and defamatory propaganda. While hearing the matter, Advocate S.S. Ahmed, appearing for Dr. Sharma, argued that the suit sought to curtail his client’s fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
He submitted that Dr. Sharma’s statements were based on official records, including CAG reports, correspondence from the Election Commission of India, and University documents, thereby falling within the ambit of fair comment in public interest. He relied on the Supreme Court verdict in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, which protects bona fide statements regarding public bodies unless driven by malice.
Opposing the plea, Advocate Anil Sethi & Associates for Jammu University contended that Dr. Sharma was running a campaign of vilification against a reputed institution, and while healthy criticism is constitutionally permissible, it must not cross into unverified, exaggerated, or defamatory assertions. In rebuttal, Advocate Ahmed maintained that Dr. Sharma had only raised genuine issues concerning alleged irregularities, favoritism, and the problems faced by research scholars and students.
After considering the pleadings and submissions, the court held that the University had failed to establish a prima facie case for continuation of the interim restraint. Consequently, the interim order preventing Dr. Sharma from making statements was vacated, with the court directing that the suit would now proceed to trial on merits.
