The Essential Role of Injunctions in Protecting Civil Rights

Author: Manan Saxena

Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University

Keywords:

Injunctions
Specific Relief Act 1963,
Code of Civil Procedure,
Civil Rights Protection,
Temporary Injunction,
Perpetual Injunction,
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,
Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh.

Introduction to the Preventive Power of Judicial Command

In any robust democratic legal order, the security and dignity of individual existence are fundamentally dependent on the protection afforded to civil rights. These rights - which encompass everything from the basic entitlements of equality before the law and personal liberty to the constitutional assurances of freedom of speech and property protection - form the very bedrock upon which a just society is built.

The judiciary, as the ultimate custodian of the Constitution and the legal framework, shoulders the solemn responsibility of ensuring these rights are not merely recognized on paper but are actively enforced in reality. This crucial task involves shielding citizens from arbitrary state action, preventing abuse of power by administrative authorities, and providing immediate recourse against private wrongs that seek to violate legal entitlements.

Among the repertoire of legal remedies available, the injunction occupies a distinguished and indispensable position. It stands apart from remedies like damages, which are fundamentally compensatory and remedial, focusing on financial restitution after the harm has occurred. In contrast, the injunction is a uniquely equitable and preventive tool. Derived from the Latin term injungere ("to command"), an injunction is a formal judicial order that compels an individual or entity either to restrain from commencing or continuing a specific wrongful act (prohibitory nature) or, in certain necessary circumstances, directs them to perform a positive, defined duty (mandatory nature).

Its core object is to prevent a breach of obligation and safeguard the applicant’s legal rights from suffering irreparable damage. The power to grant an injunction, rooted deeply in the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience, allows the courts to intervene decisively and swiftly, thereby ensuring that justice is not merely awaited or accounted for belatedly, but is actively and proactively preserved in the moment of threat. The wise and timely application of this power is essential for maintaining the status quo of a dispute, ensuring that neither party can gain an unfair advantage or diminish the subject matter of the suit through unlawful or premature action while the court adjudicates the merits of the main legal claim.

Defining the Meaning and Statutory Basis of Injunctions in India

The remedy of injunction is a judicial directive that is fundamentally designed to prevent future injury or to stop the continuation of an ongoing wrong. Legally, it functions asmm a command that binds the recipient to a specific course of action or, more commonly, inaction, thereby protecting the legal right of the party seeking relief.

Its distinct nature is that it is not intended to punish past transgressions but rather to preserve the status quo and ensure that the final decision of the court, once rendered, is not rendered nugatory by intermediate unlawful conduct. The power to grant this crucial remedy in India is governed by a dual-layered statutory framework that provides both the substantive and procedural basis for its application.

The substantive law regarding injunctions is found primarily in The Specific Relief Act, 1963. Sections 36 through 42 of this Act systematically define the types of injunctions and establish the conditions under which they may be granted. Section 36 explicitly states that preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by way of injunction.

Critically, the Act provides the statutory basis for both temporary and perpetual (permanent) injunctions, and also outlines the circumstances under which a mandatory injunction, which compels a positive act, can be decreed. Furthermore, the Act specifies the circumstances where damages may be awarded in addition to or in substitution of the injunction, ensuring that the remedy remains comprehensive. The Act's provisions ensure that injunctions are not granted arbitrarily but are tied to an enforceable legal obligation and the breach thereof.

Complementing this substantive framework is the procedural mechanism laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC are the operational provisions that empower civil courts to grant temporary injunctions. This is the court's swift intervention mechanism, allowing it to act immediately when there is an imminent danger of alienation, damage, waste, or unlawful interference with property or rights which forms the subject matter of the suit.

The CPC ensures that courts can swiftly maintain the status quo while the main trial is pending, thus preventing either party from altering the existing legal position through unlawful means. This seamless integration between the Specific Relief Act (establishing the right to the remedy) and the CPC (providing the procedure to enforce it) ensures the remedy is both legally grounded and practically accessible.

The Defining Characteristics and Essential Types of Judicial Injunctions

Injunctions are characterized by their equitable, discretionary nature and are classified into distinct types based on their duration and the specific nature of the command they issue. Understanding these characteristics is vital for appreciating their versatility in protecting civil rights.

● Equitable and Discretionary Remedy Guided by the 'Golden Trinity': The foremost characteristic of an injunction is that it is a discretionary remedy rooted in the principles of equity. The court is not bound to grant an injunction merely because a legal right has been asserted; rather, the decision rests on the court’s judgment of what is just, right, and good conscience. This discretion, however, is not arbitrary but is governed by three well-established, mandatory conditions - often referred to as the 'Golden Trinity' - which the applicant must satisfy.

○ The existence of a prima facie case must be demonstrated, meaning the applicant has raised a serious question of law or fact and has a clear case on the face of the matter, not one that is frivolous or vexatious.

○ The balance of convenience must lie heavily in the applicant's favor. The court must weigh the potential harm to the defendant if the injunction is granted against the potential harm to the plaintiff if it is refused, ensuring the greatest justice is achieved.

○ There must be a possibility of irreparable injury to the applicant if the injunction is not granted. This injury must be substantial and one that cannot be adequately compensated later by monetary damages alone. This characteristic ensures the remedy is reserved for cases where financial compensation is insufficient to cure the wrong.

● Temporary Injunction: Maintaining the Status Quo: This type of injunction is characterized by its limited duration. As defined under the CPC, a temporary injunction is granted for a specific period or until the final disposal of the suit. Its sole and overarching purpose is to maintain the status quo - the existing state of affairs - of the subject matter of the dispute until the full rights and liabilities of the parties can be definitively determined through the main trial. This preventive characteristic is crucial in preventing a defendant from taking actions that could make the ultimate decree of the court meaningless, such as alienating a disputed property or destroying evidence.

● Permanent (Perpetual) Injunction: Final and Binding Cessation: A perpetual injunction is characterized by its finality. It is granted only after a full and final hearing of the entire case, and it forms part of the final decree of the court. Once granted, it permanently restrains the defendant from committing or continuing the wrongful act against the plaintiff, establishing a conclusive and binding cessation of the unlawful act forever. This type of injunction is a substantive form of relief that conclusively establishes the plaintiff’s legal right and the defendant’s obligation to respect it, resolving the dispute finally on its merits.

● Mandatory Injunction: Compelling a Positive Act: Unlike the more common prohibitory injunction (which commands inaction), a mandatory injunction is characterized by its directive to perform a specific, positive act. This is a rarer and more drastic form of remedy, typically employed where the wrong has already occurred, and the court deems it necessary to compel the defendant to undo the wrong or restore the plaintiff to the position they were in before the defendant committed the wrongful act. For example, directing the removal of an unlawfully constructed structure or compelling the restoration of water supply are examples of its application. This type of injunction is usually reserved for cases where the continuous effect of the wrongful act is causing severe and ongoing injury to the applicant's right.

The Multifaceted Merits of Injunctions in Upholding Civil Rights

The power of injunctions is not merely a technical procedural tool but a vital substantive mechanism whose judicious application yields significant merits in the protection of a wide range of civil, constitutional, and fundamental rights.

● Proactive Prevention of Irreparable Harm

The foremost merit is the injunction’s preventive nature. By commanding a wrongdoer to stop an imminent or ongoing unlawful act, it shields the applicant from irreparable damage - harm that is either permanent or cannot be calculated and compensated in monetary terms. This is particularly crucial in cases involving reputational damage (defamation), intellectual property infringement, or the destruction of unique property, where financial damages would be an inadequate consolation after the harm has already been suffered.

● Upholding the Constitutional Right to Life (Article 21)

Injunctions have become instrumental in enforcing the fundamental Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the sphere of environmental and public interest litigation (PIL), courts use mandatory and prohibitory injunctions to compel the closure of polluting industries, direct state authorities to clean up hazardous waste, or halt unsustainable projects. This application effectively translates the abstract constitutional guarantee of a clean and safe environment into a concrete, enforceable right, proactively protecting the health and security of the public.

● Effective Protection of Property and Possessory Rights

Injunctions serve as the most effective shield for property rights. They are routinely granted to restrain parties from unlawful encroachment, carrying out unauthorized construction on disputed land, or causing irreparable damage to assets. The ability to instantly maintain the status quo of possession prevents land-grabbers or trespassers from altering the physical and legal state of the property while the main title dispute is pending, thereby protecting the constitutional right to property under Article 300A.

● Safeguarding Personal Liberty and Reputation

The power to enjoin acts is vital in protecting core aspects of personal liberty. Courts use prohibitory injunctions to prevent the unauthorized use of a person’s image, identity, or likeness (right to publicity) and to stop the publication of highly libelous or slanderous content where the damage to reputation is immediate and profound. While cautious of the freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)), courts intervene when the content is clearly malicious or unlawful, ensuring the right to a dignified life (Article 21) is protected from malicious private action.

● A Powerful Check Against Administrative Excesses

Injunctions function as a necessary check against the abuse of power and administrative excesses by the State or public bodies. Courts can issue injunctions to restrain authorities from arbitrary detention, prohibiting illegal evictions without due process, or stopping the enforcement of an order that is prima facie ultra vires or violative of natural justice. This reinforces the principle of the Rule of Law, ensuring that the State itself remains bound by legal procedure.

● Flexibility and Adaptability to Modern Wrongs

The remedy exhibits remarkable flexibility and adaptability, which is a significant merit in the context of emerging rights. Injunctions have successfully extended into the digital sphere, proving instrumental in cases involving online defamation, the dissemination of private information (data privacy), and intellectual property disputes (such as website blocking orders). This dynamic adaptability ensures that the remedy remains a relevant and potent tool for safeguarding emerging civil rights in the complex digital age.

● Complementing Constitutional Remedies (Articles 32 and 226)

Injunctions serve to complement the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts. While a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition restrains public authorities, an injunction can restrain both public and private parties and can be sought even at the subordinate court level. By providing a preventive measure at the earliest stage, injunctions mitigate the need for citizens to rush to higher constitutional courts after a violation has already occurred, thus making rights protection more accessible and immediate.

● Restoring the Status Quo through Mandatory Orders

The specific merit of the mandatory injunction is its power to compel a positive act, allowing the court not only to stop a wrong but to unwind its effects. This is vital in situations where mere inaction would perpetuate the injury (e.g., compelling a utility company to restore a service or a municipality to clear a public obstruction), ensuring a complete remedy and restoring the plaintiff’s legal position.

Challenges and Criticisms (Demerits) in the Application of Injunctions

Despite their essential role, the application of injunctions is not without its challenges and criticisms, which can sometimes undermine the very justice they are intended to serve.

○ Procedural Delays and Undermining Swift Justice: A significant criticism is the potential for procedural delays in the process of granting and hearing injunction applications. Although a temporary injunction is intended to be a swift remedy, the requirement for evidence submission, filing of counter-affidavits, and lengthy arguments on the three 'Golden Trinity' points can lead to protracted hearings. This delay can sometimes defeat the purpose of the remedy, allowing the unlawful act to continue or the irreparable harm to materialize before the court can intervene effectively.

○ Risk of Misuse and Vexatious Litigation: The very power and speed of the injunction remedy make it susceptible to misuse by opportunistic and vexatious litigants. Parties may file injunction applications based on weak or fabricated prima facie cases simply to secure an unfair tactical advantage, put pressure on the defendant, or delay legitimate processes. This misuse can lead to the freezing of legitimate commercial or administrative activities, resulting in economic losses for the defendant who is ultimately found to be acting lawfully.

○ Difficulty in Enforcement and Compliance: A major practical challenge is the difficulty in ensuring compliance and enforcement, particularly with complex or mandatory injunctions. If a defendant willfully disobeys a court order, the court must resort to proceedings for contempt of court or, in civil cases, property attachment and detention. These proceedings are often time-consuming and cumbersome, meaning the plaintiff’s protected right remains violated for an extended period even after the injunction has been granted.

○ Conflict with Larger Public Interest and Administrative Function: The grant of an injunction, especially against state action, can sometimes conflict with a larger public interest. For instance, an injunction restraining the demolition of an illegal structure might impede a necessary public infrastructure project (like road widening). Courts must constantly strike a delicate balance between protecting the individual's civil rights and ensuring the collective welfare of society, a balance that is often difficult to achieve and can draw criticism from one side or the other.

○ Overemphasis on the 'Golden Trinity' and Neglect of Substantive Justice: While the 'Golden Trinity' (prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience) is essential, an over-ritualistic application of these conditions can sometimes lead to a focus on procedural perfection rather than substantive justice. Critics argue that courts occasionally fail to look at the unique facts and equities of a case, denying an injunction merely because one of the abstract conditions is not perfectly met, even when the underlying threat to a fundamental right is severe.

○ The Challenge of 'Ex Parte' Injunctions and Natural Justice: In situations of extreme urgency, courts may grant an ex parte injunction (granted without hearing the defendant). While this is necessary to prevent immediate harm, it is a criticism that this power, if misused, can lead to a violation of the defendant’s right to be heard (principles of natural justice), as they are restrained from acting before even being aware of the suit against them. Though the law mandates a subsequent immediate hearing, the initial restraint can cause significant, immediate loss to the restrained party.

○ Risk of 'Vague' Orders and Judicial Overreach: In some instances, courts may issue injunctions that are vague, overly broad, or excessively restrictive, leading to judicial overreach. An injunction must specify the exact act or duty enjoined; if it is too general, it becomes difficult to enforce and may restrict legitimate activities of the defendant far beyond what is necessary to protect the plaintiff’s right, thereby infringing upon the defendant's own civil liberties.

○ Lack of Uniformity and Inconsistency in Discretionary Application: Since the remedy is discretionary, there can be a lack of uniformity in its application across different courts. What one judge considers "irreparable injury" or where the "balance of convenience" lies may differ significantly from another. This inconsistency makes the outcome of injunction applications less predictable, which can be a source of criticism regarding the uniform application of law.

Landmark Judicial Interpretations and the Expanding Scope of Injunctions

The power and scope of injunctions have been continuously defined, refined, and expanded by the Supreme Court of India, transforming this equitable remedy into a powerful tool for enforcing constitutional jurisprudence.

● Defining the 'Golden Trinity' and Judicial Discretion (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, 1992): The Supreme Court's ruling in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh stands as the definitive guide on the application of the 'Golden Trinity' for granting temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The Court meticulously clarified the scope of each condition, stressing that the injury must be substantial and one that cannot be adequately remedied by damages. Furthermore, the Court established that the balance of convenience is the critical determinant, where the court must weigh the potential mischief to the defendant against the mischief to the plaintiff if the injunction is refused, thereby ensuring the pursuit of the greatest justice. This judgment acts as a binding precedent, standardizing the exercise of judicial discretion across all subordinate courts in India, thus ensuring uniformity and preventing arbitrary application of the rule.

● Environmental Protection and Absolute Liability (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987): Often referred to as the Oleum Gas Leak case, this is a landmark example of the Supreme Court utilizing its inherent powers to issue powerful, mandatory and prohibitory directions that function as constitutional injunctions to protect the fundamental Right to Life (Article 21). The Court's directives not only led to the immediate cessation of hazardous industrial activity but, more profoundly, resulted in the propounding of the doctrine of Absolute Liability. This principle holds that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous activity is absolutely and unconditionally liable for any harm caused, irrespective of any negligence. The court’s injunctive power here ensured that the right to a clean environment was proactively protected against industrial hazards, making the injunction a cornerstone of modern environmental jurisprudence in India.

● Mandatory Injunctions and the Duty to Restore (Kuldip Singh v. Subhash Chander Jain, 2000): The Supreme Court, in this case, highlighted the need for courts to look at the larger justice while deciding on the equitable remedy of injunctions, especially concerning the mandatory injunction. The judgment underscored that mandatory injunctions, which compel a defendant to perform a positive act to undo a wrong, can be granted even at the interlocutory (temporary) stage, provided the case is prima facie strong and the restoration of the previous position is essential to prevent severe injustice to the plaintiff. This ruling confirmed the judicial power to ensure that a defendant does not benefit from their own wrongful and hasty action by using the time taken by litigation to perpetuate the wrong.

● Injunctions against Defamation and Free Speech (R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., 1994): In cases involving injunctions against publication, the Supreme Court has carefully balanced the civil right to reputation (Article 21) against the fundamental right to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)). The Court established that the judiciary must be highly cautious in granting a pre-publication injunction (a 'prior restraint') and should generally refrain from doing so unless the publication is clearly unlawful, defamatory, or violates an established right to privacy. This principle ensures that the powerful tool of injunction is not used to silence legitimate criticism or reporting, while still offering protection against malicious libel.

● The Role of Injunctions in Specific Performance (Nanjappan v. R. Nanjappa, 2011): Judicial interpretation has clarified the direct link between injunctions and the relief of Specific Performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Supreme Court has affirmed that a temporary injunction may be granted to prevent a party from selling or alienating property that is the subject of an agreement to sell, thus preserving the status quo and the plaintiff’s right to seek specific performance of the contract. This application ensures that the final decree of specific performance remains a viable remedy.

● Constitutional Basis of the Injunction Power (Common Law Origin): While governed by statute, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the power of injunction is an inherent, equitable power drawn from the common law tradition. This perspective allows the judiciary to grant injunctions even in novel situations not explicitly covered by the Specific Relief Act or CPC, provided the case meets the overarching principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

● Prohibiting Unlawful Strikes and Lockouts (Essential Services Cases): Courts have used prohibitory injunctions to restrain parties from engaging in unlawful strikes or lockouts, particularly in essential public services. This application highlights the power of the injunction to protect the civil rights of the public (e.g., the right to access essential services) from disruptions caused by private industrial disputes, striking a balance between labor rights and public welfare.

● Injunctions and Intellectual Property Protection (Emerging Digital Wrongs): Recent judicial pronouncements have seen the use of injunctions expanding into the digital realm, such as granting "dynamic injunctions" to block ever-changing infringing websites and pirate domains. These highly technical and specialized orders underscore the contemporary necessity of adapting the equitable remedy to safeguard intellectual property and digital rights against borderless online violations.

● Preventing Arbitrary Deactivation (Telecom and Utility Services): Courts have often used mandatory injunctions to compel utility providers (like electricity or water) or telecom operators to restore services that were disconnected arbitrarily or without following due process. This immediate intervention ensures that the right to essential services, tied intrinsically to the Right to Life (Article 21), is protected from the administrative arbitrariness of service providers.

Methodology and Suggestions for Enhanced Efficacy

To ensure that the remedy of injunction remains a potent, fair, and accessible defender of civil rights in India, a multi-pronged approach involving a methodological overhaul and specific suggestions for legal enhancement is necessary.

Methodology for Judicial and Legislative Reform

● Standardized Judicial Checklist Methodology: Courts should adopt a more standardized, structured methodology for assessing the 'Golden Trinity,' moving beyond subjective interpretation. This involves creating a detailed, mandatory judicial checklist for all interlocutory applications, requiring judges to record specific findings on the likelihood of the plaintiff's success, the monetary calculability of the injury, and a clear, explicit comparison of the mischief to both parties. This methodological standardization will enhance predictability and reduce the risk of arbitrary discretion.

● Integration of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): A methodological shift should mandate a preliminary screening of injunction applications for suitability for mediation or conciliation before proceeding to a full hearing. In many cases, especially those involving property or minor neighborhood disputes, a neutral mediator can quickly secure a temporary cessation of the offending act through a consent order, providing the functional equivalent of an injunction with greater speed and cost-effectiveness.

● Specialized Digital Context Protocol: The judiciary must develop a specific protocol for injunctions in the digital sphere. This methodology should involve technical experts (like amicus curiae) to assess the feasibility and necessity of orders like website blocking or data deletion. The protocol must mandate an explicit sunset clause for all digital injunctions and require the applicant to justify the breadth of the restraint to prevent overreach that impacts the freedom of speech or legitimate online activity.

Suggestions for Legislative and Procedural Enhancement

● Enacting a Time-Bound Disposal Mandate (Amendment to CPC): To combat the procedural delay criticism, the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) should be amended to introduce a strict, statutory time limit (e.g., 30 days) for the final disposal of an ex parte injunction application after the defendant has filed their reply. This mandate would accelerate the process and mitigate the potential for the misuse of ex parte orders against the principles of natural justice.

● Standardizing the Security Deposit Mechanism: The Specific Relief Act or the CPC should be amended to standardize the requirement of a security deposit or bank guarantee from the plaintiff when an injunction with significant economic implications is granted. This deposit would serve as a ready source of compensation for the defendant in case the injunction is later vacated, acting as a deterrent against vexatious litigation and ensuring financial accountability on the part of the plaintiff.

● Defining the Scope of "Irreparable Injury" in Statute: While judicial interpretation has clarified "irreparable injury," the Specific Relief Act, 1963 should be amended to include a non-exhaustive illustrative definition of "irreparable injury" that specifically addresses modern concerns (e.g., violation of data privacy, loss of unique digital assets, severe environmental damage) to guide the courts more effectively.

● Mandating Public Interest Assessment for State Actions: When an injunction is sought against a public authority or State action, the law should explicitly mandate the court to perform a formal, documented public interest assessment before granting the order. This assessment must weigh the individual right against the collective socio-economic consequences of halting the State activity, providing a transparent record of the court's balancing act.

Conclusion: The Enduring Defence of Equitable Justice

The injunction remains a cornerstone of equitable justice in India, embodying the judiciary's commitment to protecting the legal integrity and fundamental dignity of the individual. It is not merely a legal procedure but a profound philosophical tool that elevates the principle of prevention over cure, offering an immediate shield against the dissipation of rights and the infliction of irreparable harm. By commanding the cessation of wrongful acts, the injunction serves as the most potent practical mechanism for maintaining the Rule of Law, ensuring that no party can benefit from their own unlawful conduct during the pendency of a legal dispute.

The judicious application of this remedy, as continuously refined by landmark Supreme Court pronouncements such as Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, demonstrates its unique capacity to bridge the gap between abstract constitutional rights and concrete individual protection. It proactively enforces the Right to Life (Article 21) against environmental degradation and administrative overreach, safeguards property rights (Article 300A) from encroachment, and protects reputation from malicious attack. The future evolution of injunction jurisprudence lies in its successful adaptation to the complex demands of the digital age, requiring procedural enhancements and methodological standardization to prevent misuse, ensure swift enforcement, and strike a delicate balance between individual liberty and collective public interest. Ultimately, the preventive power of an injunction is its defining characteristic, distinguishing it as an enduring, powerful, and indispensable defender of liberty and justice in the modern legal system.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q. 1. What is the main difference between an injunction and damages?

- An injunction is a preventive remedy that is a court order commanding a person to stop (or perform) an act to prevent a wrong. Damages are a compensatory remedy that involves an award of money to compensate a person after a wrong has occurred.

Q. 2. What are the three essential conditions (Golden Trinity) for a temporary injunction?

- The court must be satisfied that there is:

1) a prima facie case (a strong likelihood of success for the applicant),

2) irreparable injury (harm that cannot be adequately compensated by money), and

3) the balance of convenience lies heavily in the applicant's favour.

Q. 3. What is a Mandatory Injunction?

- A mandatory injunction is an unusual type of court order that directs a person to perform a specific, positive act, often to compel them to restore the applicant to the position they were in before the defendant committed the wrongful act (e.g., directing the removal of an illegal structure).

Q. 4. How is the power to grant injunctions legally derived in India?

- The power is derived from two statutes: the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Sections 36-42), which provides the substantive law, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2), which provides the procedural law for temporary injunctions.

Q. 5. Can an injunction be granted against the State or a government body?

- Yes, courts frequently grant injunctions to restrain State action, particularly when the action is prima facie illegal, arbitrary, or violates the fundamental rights of a citizen, although the court must exercise greater caution and weigh the public interest.

Q. 6. What is an ex parte injunction?

- An ex parte injunction is a temporary order granted by the court without hearing the defendant due to the extreme urgency and immediate danger of irreparable harm. The law requires that the defendant must be heard immediately afterward to either confirm or vacate the order.

References

1. The Civil Rights Injunctions

2. Understanding Injunctions Under Indian Civil Law

3. Injunction under Indian Law

Legal Facts and Bites

Search This Blog