The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →IIPM obtained an injunction in 2011 that temporarily restrained publication of critical reporting about its founder and dean, Arindam Chaudhuri. On 16 February 2018, the Delhi High Court vacated that injunction—but only after a prima facie review of an interim application. The order did not finally decide the defamation suit or find that IIPM intended to “hide the truth.”
What IIPM challenged—and what the injunction did
The dispute concerned The Caravan article “Sweet smell of success – How Arindam Chaudhuri made a fortune of the aspirations and insecurities of India’s middle classes.” IIPM sued the magazine’s editors, publisher, printer and the article’s author. On 12 April 2011, an injunction restrained publication of the challenged material.
The immediate effect was to limit publication while the case proceeded. That practical consequence is different from proving why IIPM brought the case. The phrase “used the defamation law to hide the truth” is an interpretation of the episode, not a finding recorded by the court.
Why IIPM’s education claims were in the public-interest context
The dispute arose amid scrutiny of IIPM’s courses and qualifications. A separate Delhi High Court case, W.P.(C) 5937/2010, decided on 26 September 2014, addressed how IIPM described its programmes, degrees and recognition. It was not the defamation case against The Caravan.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11#1 Best Overall
In that education case, the court restricted IIPM and its management from using specified MBA, BBA and business-school terms for its programmes, and required clear disclosure about recognition and foreign qualifications. The court described the qualification issue as “a maze created by the respondent No 4 IIPM to entrap students” into seeking a qualification IIPM was not entitled to confer. Those directions supplied relevant public context for reporting about IIPM, but they did not decide whether every statement in The Caravan article was true.
What the Delhi High Court decided in 2018
On 16 February 2018, Justice Manmohan considered the pending interim application in CS(OS) 3354/2015. The court said Indian courts can issue pre-publication or pre-broadcast restraints in matters before a court when necessity and proportionality are satisfied and reasonable alternatives are insufficient to prevent the risk.
Rank #2
Applying that standard at the interim stage, the judge considered the challenged passages to be based prima facie on statements, facts in the public domain, or the author’s opinions and conclusions drawn from research. The order said there was no material at that stage showing reckless disregard for truth or actual malice, and that a defence of justification, truthfulness or fair comment could not be ruled out.
“Accordingly, the injunction order dated 12th April, 2011 is vacated and the present application is dismissed.”
Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.
The court therefore removed the 2011 restraint and dismissed the interim application. Its conclusion was expressly prima facie: it was not a final ruling that the article had been proved true or that the defamation claim had failed in full. The underlying suit was listed for a later date, and the reviewed order does not establish its eventual disposition.
What was alleged about the wider effect of the cases
Journalist and education-sector participant Maheshwer Peri has described multiple cases and injunctions involving IIPM as creating pressure on reporting. His account characterizes the litigation as silencing and alleges forum shopping and particular motives. Those are Peri’s descriptions and allegations, not findings made in the 2018 order. The injunction’s temporary restriction on publication is a documented effect; the court order does not establish that concealing the truth was IIPM’s purpose.
Rank #4
- Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford History of the United States)
Contemporaneous legal coverage by LiveLaw reported the defamation claim as Rs 50 crore. That is the reported value of the claim, not an award of damages by the court.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the case establishes—and what it does not
- Established: IIPM obtained an injunction against the challenged Caravan material in April 2011, and the Delhi High Court vacated it in February 2018 after an interim, prima facie assessment.
- Not established by that order: that the entire defamation suit was finally dismissed, that every disputed passage was definitively proven true, or that IIPM’s intent was to hide the truth.
The defensible account is that defamation proceedings temporarily restrained critical publication, and the Delhi High Court later found the record sufficient at the interim stage to remove that restraint. Claims about motive or the wider chilling effect should be attributed to the people making them, rather than presented as judicial findings.
Sources: Delhi High Court, interim order in CS(OS) 3354/2015, 16 February 2018; Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 5937/2010, 26 September 2014; Maheshwer Peri’s account in Scroll; LiveLaw’s report on the 2018 ruling.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
