The law of injunctions forms an important part of the equitable jurisdiction of courts, providing preventive relief rather than compensatory remedies. An injunction is a judicial order restraining a person from doing a particular act or requiring them to perform a specific act. Unlike damages, which address harm already suffered, injunctions aim to prevent harm from occurring, thereby protecting rights more effectively. In India, the law of injunctions is primarily governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963, supplemented by provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and developed through judicial precedents. The equitable nature of injunctions means that their grant is discretionary, guided by settled principles of justice, fairness, and balance of convenience.
The most fundamental principle governing injunctions is that they are not granted as a matter of right but as a discretionary relief, subject to the satisfaction of the court. To obtain an injunction, the plaintiff must establish three essential conditions: a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favor, and the likelihood of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The prima facie case requires the plaintiff to show that they have a strong arguable right requiring protection until final adjudication. Balance of convenience means that the comparative hardship caused by granting or refusing the injunction must favor the applicant. Irreparable injury refers to harm that cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms, such as loss of reputation, breach of privacy, or destruction of unique property.
Injunctions may be classified broadly into temporary and perpetual injunctions. Temporary injunctions are governed by Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and are granted to preserve the status quo during the pendency of a suit. They may be granted ex parte in urgent situations but are subject to confirmation after hearing both parties. Perpetual injunctions, on the other hand, are granted by way of final relief under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, permanently restraining the defendant from violating the plaintiff’s rights. Section 39 also provides for mandatory injunctions, compelling a party to perform a positive act, often to undo the consequences of a wrongful act. Prohibitory injunctions restrain wrongful conduct, while mandatory injunctions enforce corrective action.
The application of injunctions spans a wide range of civil disputes. In property disputes, courts frequently grant injunctions to prevent unlawful dispossession, encroachment, or alienation of property. In commercial law, injunctions are sought to restrain breach of contract, infringement of intellectual property rights, or misuse of trade secrets. In family law, injunctions may prevent domestic violence or protect custody rights. Environmental law has also witnessed innovative use of injunctions, where courts issue directions to prevent industrial pollution or ecological damage. In public law, courts sometimes issue injunctions in the nature of writs, restraining governmental excesses and protecting fundamental rights.
Judicial precedents have shaped the contours of injunction jurisprudence in India. In Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992), the Supreme Court reiterated the three essential tests for granting interim injunctions. In American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (House of Lords, UK), which has been persuasive in India, the principle of maintaining status quo pending trial was emphasized. In India, courts have also stressed that injunctions cannot be granted to enforce unlawful contracts, restrain legal proceedings, or protect a right not recognized by law. Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act explicitly bars injunctions in certain cases, such as restraining criminal proceedings, legislative acts, or acts done in good faith under statutory authority.
Despite its importance, the law of injunctions has been criticized for delays and misuse. Temporary injunctions are sometimes obtained ex parte on weak grounds, leading to abuse by plaintiffs who seek to prolong litigation and harass defendants. Courts have recognized this risk and increasingly emphasize the need for strict scrutiny at the interlocutory stage. The grant of injunctions must balance individual rights with public interest, ensuring that injunctions do not unduly interfere with lawful activities or obstruct justice.
In conclusion, the law of injunctions represents a vital instrument of civil justice, providing flexible remedies to prevent harm and protect rights. Rooted in equity, its principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury ensure fairness in judicial discretion. Its applications span property, contract, intellectual property, family, and environmental law, reflecting its wide utility. At the same time, courts must guard against misuse and ensure that injunctions serve their true purpose as a shield against injustice rather than a weapon of harassment. Properly applied, injunctions remain a cornerstone of equitable justice in India’s legal system.
