KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court granted a Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) application for an Erinford injunction, restraining Telegram Messenger Inc and the administrators of two Telegram channels from publishing or disseminating 33 specified articles deemed harmful. The injunction remains in effect pending the disposal of an appeal before the Court of Appeal.
Judge Mahazan Mat Taib on Thursday (Oct 30) granted the injunction after determining that the potential harm to the defendants - Telegram Messenger Inc. and the administrators of the "Edisi Siasat" and "Edisi Khas" channels - was minimal when weighed against the substantial and severe damage to national institutions, public confidence and societal harmony that would likely result from the continued dissemination of the harmful content.
"The court also took into account public interest and national security concerns in making the decision, stating that public interest should outweigh individual interest when matters of national safety and stability are at stake.
"Malaysia is a multi-racial, multi-religious country under a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. All parties involved in the judicial process here must respect the fundamental values that our legal system is built upon,” she said, adding that the defendants must shut down the channels and refrain from further disseminating harmful content.
An Erinford injunction is an interim measure granted to maintain the status quo after a court has refused an initial injunction, typically to preserve the subject matter pending an appeal of that refusal.
Judge Mahazan ruled that the balance of convenience firmly favoured the defendants, noting that refusing the injunction would risk rendering the appeal nugatory as the harmful channels could multiply, migrate, or cause irreparable damage.
The judge also expressed disappointment with Telegram's failure to comply with the court order issued in September.
"I must observe that the third defendant's conduct in reopening or maintaining access to the appeal channels and continuing similar applications immediately after this court's inter-parties decision demonstrates a troubling attitude of technical compliance without substantive regard to the spirit and purpose of the court's earlier order,” she said.
"The court notes that the earlier injunction, which restrained the defendants from uttering, writing, broadcasting, or republishing harmful contents of the same or with a similar nature, was planted precisely to curb the dissemination of the identified and generous material.
"The third defendant's narrow construction of that order, treating it as limited only to the specifically identified contents, invariably reflects an attempt to exploit procedural requisition to circumvent substantive justice,” she said.
