Jammu, Sep 4: The Court of Hina Parveen Goney, 4th Additional Munsiff, Jammu, has vacated the interim directions passed last year, which had restrained Dr. Vikas Sharma, former President of Jammu University Research Scholars Executive Association (JURSEA) and presently a research scholar in Buddhist Studies, from making public statements against Jammu University and its officials.
The interim order had been issued in a civil suit filed by Jammu University through its Registrar, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain Sharma from what the University described as “false, vexatious, scandalous and inflammatory propaganda” against its functioning and officials. The earlier directions had also barred him from giving interviews or publishing content in print or electronic media concerning the University until further hearing.
While modifying the order, the court heard Advocate S.S. Ahmed on behalf of Dr. Sharma and Advocate Anil Sethi & Associates representing Jammu University.
Advocate Ahmed as per the news agency Kashmir News Trust argued that the suit was an attempt to curtail Sharma’s right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He submitted that Sharma’s statements were not baseless propaganda but reflected alleged irregularities in a public institution, which is a matter of legitimate public concern. Ahmed cited the Supreme Court judgment in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that statements about public bodies, if true or based on public records, are protected unless motivated by malice.
He further contended that Sharma’s briefings relied on material including Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports, correspondence of the Election Commission of India, and University records, thereby providing a factual basis to his claims.
On the other hand, Advocate Anil Sethi & Associates, representing Jammu University, argued that Sharma had engaged in a sustained vilification campaign that damaged the reputation of the institution. The counsel submitted that while healthy criticism is part of a democracy, freedom of speech carries the responsibility not to spread unverified allegations or use defamatory language against a statutory body.
In rebuttal, Advocate Ahmed maintained that Sharma’s interventions were in the public interest, intended to expose nepotism, irregularities and to highlight the plight of students and scholars who otherwise lacked a platform.
After hearing both sides, the court observed that the University had not established a prima facie case to justify continuation of the interim gag order. It directed that the civil suit shall proceed for trial on merits, but declined to extend the restraint earlier imposed on Dr. Sharma.
The case will now be heard in detail, with the court examining evidence and arguments before deciding on the University’s plea for a permanent injunction. [KNT]
