904-NMS-1220-15-F4.DOC said in these situations that the refusal to answer a legitimate query, one raised in the public interest where a large body of investors is concerned can be said to be defamatory. 24. As I said earlier, this is not directly a question of freedom of press or free speech. At the same time I do not believe that a defamation action should be allowed to be used to negate or stifle genuine criticism, even pointed criticism or criticism that is harshly worded; nor should it be allowed to choke a fair warning to the public if its interest stands threatened in some way. It is to me a matter of very great dismay that the NSE should have attempted this action at all. Except where it is shown that the article complained of is facially defamatory, that is to say, it is prima facie intended to defame or libel, an injunction will not readily be granted. Every criticism is not defamation. Every person criticized is not defamed. 25. Defamation law is not to be used to gag, to silence, to suppress, to subjugate. Ms. Dalal and Mr. Basu are I think correct generally when they say that of all the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution, the freedom of speech and expression is arguably the most volatile, the most sensitive to assault, and the most precious. Its restrictions, and defamation law is indeed such a restriction, are to be narrowly construed. 19 Defamation is a very thin red line. It must not be crossed, but it is not actionable only because it is approached, however closely. It is indeed protected fair comment when questions are raised in the public interest after due care is shown to have been taken to elicit a 19 Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 1; Shreya Singhal v Union of India, 2015 5 SCC 1 25 of 30 ::: Uploaded on - 10/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2020 18:08:37 :::