As per case facts, the applicant, a public figure, sought an interim injunction to restrain the first respondent from publishing defamatory material and to remove existing posts across social media. ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
O.A. No.948 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON 10.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON 07.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
O.A. No.948 of 2025 & A. No.4798 of 2025
in
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.250 of 2025
T.Rangaraj .. Applicant
Vs.
1.Ms.Joy Crizildaa
2.John Doe/s .. Respondents
Prayer in O.A. No.948 of 2025 & A. No.4798 of 2025: Application filed for an
order of interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent/1st defendant, her men,
agents, representatives or any persons claiming under or through her, from in
any manner making, writing, uploading, printing, publishing, broadcasting,
distributing, posting, circulating, or disseminating in any form of media,
whether print, electronic, digital, internet, social media platforms or otherwise,
any false, malicious or defamatory material, statements, videos, reels, captions,
photographs, audio-visual content of communications disparaging the
applicant's/plaintiff's personality rights, which directly or indirectly defame his
character, personal life, professional standing or reputation in the hospitality
industry, entertainment sector or the public domain, thereby causing him
irreparable commercial loss and goodwill and reputation.
_____________
Page 1/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
Prayer in A. No.4798 of 2025: To issue direction to the 1st Respondent/1st
Defendant to remove/delete the false, defamatory instagram post made in her
instagram profile published on 26.07.2025, 27.07.2025, 30.07.2025, 19.08.2025,
31.08.2025 and remove/delete any other material or statements aforesaid
including tagging the name of the Applicant/Plaintiff in all online media
including but not limited to X (Twitter), Facebook, Telegram, Instagram,
pending disposal of the above Suit.
****
For Applicant: Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Vijayan Subramanian
For Respondent: Mr.S.Prabhakaran, Senior Counsel
for Ms.R.Sudha (for R1)
COMMON ORDER
It is relevant to quote the sacred couplet No.144 of Thiruvalluvar:
vidj;Jizah; MapDk; vd;dhk; jpidj;Jiza[k;
njuhd; gpwdpy; g[fy;/
tpsf;fk ; ? jpidast[k; Muha;e;J ghh;f;fhky; gpwDila
kidtpaplk ; bry;Yjy;. vt;tst [ bgUikia
cilatuhapDk; vd;dthf Koa[k; ?
_____________
Page 2/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
2000 years ago, the famous saint Thiruvalluvar had stated in a sacred
couplet about the extra marital relationship of a man beyond the marriage life
with his wife and its consequences.
2.The applicant/plaintiff has filed the above suit for the following reliefs:
a) Permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant, her
men, agents, representatives or any persons claiming under or
through her, from in any manner making, writing, uploading,
printing, publishing, broadcasting, distributing, posting,
circulating, or disseminating in any form of media, whether print,
electronic, digital, internet, social media platforms or otherwise,
any false, malicious or defamatory material, statements, videos,
reels, captions, photographs, audio-visual content of
communications disparaging the applicant's/plaintiff's personality
rights, which directly or indirectly defame his character, personal
life, professional standing or reputation in the hospitality industry,
entertainment sector or the public domain, thereby causing him
irreparable commercial loss and goodwill and reputation;
b) A mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to
remove/delete the false, defamatory instagram post made in her
Instagram profile published on 26.07.2025, 27.07.2025,
30.07.2025, 19.08.2025, 31.08.2025 and remove/delete any other
material or statements aforesaid including tagging the name of the
plaintiff in all online media including but not limied to X(twitter),
Facebook, Telegram, Instagram.
_____________
Page 3/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
Brief facts of the case of the Applicant is as follows:
3. The applicant/plaintiff is one of the directors in Madhampatty
Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited, which was incorporated on 30.08.2010,
which deals with catering, and food services since 2010 under the brand name
"MADHAMPATTY PAKASHALA" with sheer commitment towards their
business, the company where the plaintiff was one of the directors, had grown to
a greater extent and the plaintiff had taken part in business accomplishments. He
has also ventured into the field of cinema and television. He had featured in a
movie called Mehandi Circus in the year 2019 and thereafter another movie
titled as Penguin and few other movies. He was also taking part in a popular TV
reality show "Cooku with Comali" Season 5 (2024) where his culinary expertise
won him appreciation in the said show.
4. These ventures have reinforced the standing of the applicant as not only
a successful businessman but also a well-recognized public personality. The
applicant's success story was featured in Vijay Television's Mudhal Vanakkam
show as "Madhampatty Rangaraj's Secret of Success" on May, 2024. The
applicant has received several awards and they were also conferred with Asia's
_____________
Page 4/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
Most Admired Hospitality Professional Award and had gathered huge reputation
and goodwill across the country.
5. According to the applicant/plaintiff, the first respondent/first defendant
had approached him as a professional costume designer during December, 2023,
projecting that she was capable of assisting him with his costume designing
requirements. The plaintiff had reposed trust in her and extended friendship in
good faith without knowing the 1
st
defendant’s ulterior motives. As days rolled
on, the professional association extended as a good friendship and thereafter,
Joy Crizilda, the 1
st
defendant herein deceitfully induced the plaintiff into a
relationship of confidence. When this deceitful relationship continued, suddenly,
the plaintiff, to his shock and surprise came to know in the month of July, 2025
that the 1
st
defendant had posted certain defamatory posts, videos and photos as
against the plaintiff which had caused irreparable injury to the personal
reputation of the applicant.
6. This act of the 1
st
defendant was done with an intention to propagate an
allegation that there is a marital relationship between the plaintiff and the 1
st
defendant. Such a statement which was aired in the social media had tarnished
_____________
Page 5/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of the common man which also caused
a considerable damage in the plaintiff’s catering business. Joy Crizilda had
continued posting such photographs, videos, audio messages across the social
media platforms which had caused irreparable injury and a huge dent in his
personal reputation among the general public. Such statements are not only
defamatory, but are a calculated damage on the reputation and the goodwill
which was built meticulously by the plaintiff.
7. According to the plaintiff, Joy Crizilda does not have any right to
malign, defame and disparage the plaintiff. Such scandalous allegations without
any basis has created a sense of suspicion in the minds of the common public
about the plaintiff's reputation and they started ridiculing him which caused
serious repercussions to not only his reputation but also his commercial
activities. The 1
st
defendant started giving interviews to various media on
29.08.2025 making false, frivolous, scandalous allegations against the plaintiff
and the said interviews were highly circulated in the social platforms, namely
YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram and other social media channels
which have become so viral and triggered defamatory discussions and
comments as against the plaintiff at the instance of the 1
st
defendant.
_____________
Page 6/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
8. The acts of the 1
st
defendant has caused severe damages to the
personality rights of the plaintiff and this kind of venomous disparagement has
not only defamed him personally and but also his entire family. According to the
plaintiff, the first defendant is having an Instagram page titled as
"@joycrizildaa". From the said Instagram page, she had published defaming
contents on 26.07.2025, which paved way for a media trial, wherein, various
television channels, YouTube creators, digital platforms, Instagram accounts
have sensationalized the false allegations against the plaintiff. Such debates,
discussions have aimed to tarnish the image of the plaintiff and has given a
widespread misconceptions and negative impression about the plaintiff.
According to the plaintiff, all these allegations are baseless, frivolous,
defamatory and is calculated move to bring down the reputation of the plaintiff
which was built over the decades in personal capacity and as a director of the
company.
9. He further claimed that he is a well acclaimed chef for the past two
decades, having a most valuable commercial establishments. Because of this
calculated attack against the plaintiff, significant revenue loss has occurred to
the company in which the plaintiff is a director. According to the plaintiff, more
_____________
Page 7/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
than 150 YouTube channels and several thousands of Instagram accounts have
re-published the defamatory videos of Joy Crizilda which was viewed by 75
million viewers, thus making an unlawful commercial gains by monetising the
identity of the plaintiff.
10. Since the act of tarnishing the image and reputation of the plaintiff
was on day-to-day basis, the plaintiff, has filed the present suit without initiating
mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act against the
defendants. According to the plaintiff, since his personality right is violated and
his high reputation is commercially exploited by the defendants by circulating
defamatory contents against the plaintiff in the social media, the subject matter
of the suit comes under the definition of commercial dispute as contemplated
under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w the first
proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act and prayed the reliefs as
stated supra.
11. Mr. Srinath Sridevan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
plaintiff pointed out the photographs which are available in the social media, the
story that was uploaded by the first defendant about the plaintiff and the first
_____________
Page 8/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
defendant's relationship and the photographs posted by the first defendant which
shows both of them in a very close proximity and private photographs. The
learned senior counsel submitted that all these content were published by the
first defendant who had created the picture as if the plaintiff and the first
defendant got married at the instance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff denied the
marriage. The learned senior counsel submitted that the plaintiff is already
married and having two children, who are homed at Coimbatore. The
photographs, videos and debates which are on-going in various YouTube
channels apart from main stream visual media are tarnishing the image of the
plaintiff as an individual and also as the director of a company which had
suffered a huge loss. To strengthen the case of the plaintiff, the learned senior
counsel relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Order of this court dated 23.05.2025 in O.A. No.525 of 2025 and A.
No.2424 of 2025 in C.S. No.111 of 2025;
(ii) Judgment of Allahabad High Court in 2025:AHC:132193 and
(iii) Judgment of the Supreme court of United Kingdom in PJS v News
Group Newspapers Ltd., decided on 19.05.2016.
_____________
Page 9/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
12. Per contra, the first defendant has filed a detailed counter denying all
the allegations levelled by the plaintiff and had specifically stated that in the
month of July through an erstwhile friend, she got acquaintance with the
plaintiff and from 01.08.2023 to 30.08.2023, the first defendant had met the
plaintiff on several occasions in a friendly manner which had turned into a
relationship. During this personal meetings, the plaintiff had informed the first
defendant that he got judicially separated from his first wife and therefore is
living separately and he is in search of a life partner. The plaintiff and the first
defendant had discussed about their marital issues, the first defendant had
informed that she is undergoing torturous matrimonial life which caused a huge
mental agony and at those circumstances, the plaintiff had moved closely and
asked her to come out of the matrimonial relationship as she is facing
matrimonial torture because of the existing marital life with her husband.
13. According to the first defendant, the plaintiff had insisted her to
initiate a divorce proceeding against her husband which caused hindrance for
the relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant. Therefore, the first
defendant had filed a divorce application before the family court. She further
contended that on 24.12.2023, she got married to the plaintiff as per hindu rites
_____________
Page 10/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
and customs at Thiruveedhi amman temple situated at MRC Nagar, Chennai and
after the said marriage, the plaintiff has introduced the first defendant as his wife
to all his friends, relatives and persons known to him. It is her further case that
in the month of May, 2024, the plaintiff has taken the first defendant to his
native place, namely Coimbatore, for the first time and introduced her to his
parents and the plaintiff got admission to the first defendant's son Jayden in a
prestigious school and signed in the school application form as his father.
14. The first defendant’s further case is that during September, 2024 she
became pregnant because of the intimacy with the plaintiff and when the
plaintiff came to know about the same, he insisted her to go for an abortion.
Despite her love and affection towards the unborn child, on a continuous
persuasion and torture at the hands of the plaintiff, the first defendant underwent
abortion and subsequently the same sequence of events occurred again in the
month of December, 2024. The pregnancy and abortion have become a regular
affair and when she got pregnant in the month of April, 2025, the plaintiff had
insisted her to go for an abortion, while, according to the first defendant, she
refused to do so. During late April, 2025, the plaintiff became very abusive and
started physically abusing the first defendant and demanded her to abort the
_____________
Page 11/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
child which was declined by her despite continuous torture by the plaintiff.
When the first defendant visited the plaintiff while he was participating in the
television programme "Cooku with Comali", the plaintiff along with his
Manager one Mr.Sharma had abused the first defendant in filthy language and
assaulted her.
15. The first defendant further contends that at this juncture, she came to
know that the plaintiff has never divorced his first wife and that the plaintiff had
cohabited with the first defendant who believed that the marriage which took
place between the plaintiff and his first wife has come to an end. The marriage
between the plaintiff and the first defendant led to two abortions in the month of
September and December 2024. According to the first defendant, the plaintiff
had deceived her by making her to believe that he is judicially separated from
his first wife and persuaded her to go for a divorce with her first husband.
16. Mr.S.Prabhakaran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1
st
defendant contended that the first defendant who is in her advanced stage of
pregnancy is fighting for her unborn child. The photos and videos uploaded by
the first defendant would establish that the plaintiff has married the first
_____________
Page 12/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
defendant, the marriage was consummated and the first defendant is carrying the
plaintiff’s child. The plaintiff has cheated the first defendant by stating that he
already obtained divorce from his first wife.
17. The learned senior counsel for the first defendant contended that as
the plaintiff forced the first defendant to abort the child and evaded all his
responsibilities towards the first defendant and her unborn child, the first
defendant went to meet the plaintiff on 13.08.2025 at Hotel Meridien at Chennai
and the plaintiff refused to meet her and again she visited the plaintiff on
20.08.2025 in the shooting spot along with her mother and sister. However,
there was no response from him.
18. The learned senior counsel submitted that since all these efforts ended
as a futile exercise, the first defendant preferred a complaint with the
Commissioner of Police, seeking justice on 29.08.2025. She had also addressed
the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and to the Adyar Police
Station and Thiruvanmiyur Police Station. The learned senior counsel for the
first defendant vehemently contended that the plaintiff himself has agreed in the
plaint that there exist an intimate relationship between the plaintiff and the first
_____________
Page 13/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
defendant by stating that “under the guise of professional association, the 1
st
defendant had deceitfully induced him into a relationship of confidence”.
Therefore, only to escape from the complaints given by the first defendant
before the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and before the
Commissioner of Police dated 29.08.2025, the plaintiff has filed the present suit
to arm twist the legal battle. Learned senior counsel contended that the plaintiff
has not established as to how his personality rights are commercialised by the
defendants, which is an important factor in a suit of this nature, therefore the
plaintiff is not entitled to any interim relief.
19. In support of his claim, the learned senior counsel for the first
defendant relied upon the following judgments:
Bloomberg Television Production Services India (P) Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment
Enterprises Ltd., reported in (2025) 1 SCC 741, wherein it was held as under:
5. In addition to this oft-repeated test, there are also additional factors,
which must weigh with courts while granting an ex parte ad interim
injunction. Some of these factors were elucidated by a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das [Morgan Stanley
Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225 : (1994) 81 Comp Cas 318] ,
in the following terms : (SCC pp. 241-42, para 36)
“36. As a principle, ex parte injunction could be granted only
under exceptional circumstances. The factors which should weigh
with the court in the grant of ex parte injunction are—
(a) whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the
plaintiff;
_____________
Page 14/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
(b) whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve
greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;
(c) the court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff
first had notice of the act complained so that the making of
improper order against a party in his absence is prevented;
(d) the court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced
for some time and in such circumstances it will not grant ex parte
injunction;
(e) the court would expect a party applying for ex parte
injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application.
(f) even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a
limited period of time.
(g) General principles like prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the
court.”
6. Significantly, in suits concerning defamation by media platforms and/or
journalists, an additional consideration of balancing the fundamental right to
free speech with the right to reputation and privacy must be borne in mind [R.
Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632] . The constitutional mandate of
protecting journalistic expression cannot be understated, and courts must tread
cautiously while granting pre-trial interim injunctions. The standard to be
followed may be borrowed from the decision
in Bonnard v. Perryman [Bonnard v. Perryman, (1891) 2 Ch 269 (CA)] . This
standard, christened the “Bonnard standard”, laid down by the Court of
Appeal (England and Wales), has acquired the status of a common law
principle for the grant of interim injunctions in defamation suits
[Holley v. Smyth, 1998 QB 726 (CA)] . The Court of Appeal
in Bonnard [Bonnard v. Perryman, (1891) 2 Ch 269 (CA)] held as follows :
(Ch p. 284)
“… But it is obvious that the subject-matter of an action for
defamation is so special as to require exceptional caution in
exercising the jurisdiction to interfere by injunction before the trial
of an action to prevent an anticipated wrong. The right of free
speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals
should possess, and, indeed, that they should exercise without
impediment, so long as no wrongful act is done; and, unless an
alleged libel is untrue, there is no wrong committed; but, on the
contrary, often a very wholesome act is performed in the publication
and repetition of an alleged libel. Until it is clear that an alleged
libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at all has been
infringed; and the importance of leaving free speech unfettered is a
_____________
Page 15/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and
warily with the granting of interim injunctions.”(emphasis supplied)
8. In essence, the grant of a pre-trial injunction against the publication of an
article may have severe ramifications on the right to freedom of speech of the
author and the public's right to know. An injunction, particularly ex parte,
should not be granted without establishing that the content sought to be
restricted is “malicious” or “palpably false”. Granting interim injunctions,
before the trial commences, in a cavalier manner results in the stifling of
public debate. In other words, courts should not grant ex parte injunctions
except in exceptional cases where the defence advanced by the respondent
would undoubtedly fail at trial. In all other cases, injunctions against the
publication of material should be granted only after a full-fledged trial is
conducted or in exceptional cases, after the respondent is given a chance to
make their submissions.
9. Increasingly, across various jurisdictions, the concept of “SLAPP suits” has
been recognised either by statute or by courts. The term “SLAPP” stands for
“Strategic Litigation against Public Participation” and is an umbrella term
used to refer to litigation predominantly initiated by entities that wield
immense economic power against members of the media or civil society, to
prevent the public from knowing about or participating in important affairs in
the public interest [ Donson, F.J.L., Legal Intimidation : A SLAPP in the Face
of Democracy (London, New York : Free Association Books, 2000).] . We must
be cognizant of the realities of prolonged trials. The grant of an interim
injunction, before the trial commences, often acts as a “death sentence” to the
material sought to be published, well before the allegations have been proven.
While granting ad interim injunctions in defamation suits, the potential of
using prolonged litigation to prevent free speech and public participation must
also be kept in mind by courts.
The learned senior counsel relied upon the aforesaid Judgment and argued
that the materials published by the first defendant has the potential of
bringing out the true color of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not
entitled to any interim relief in the present case.
Tata Sons Limited Versus Greenpeace International & Anr, reported in 2011
_____________
Page 16/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
SCC OnLine Del 466, wherein it was observed as follows:
"28. The English common law precedent on awarding interim injunctions in
cases of defamation is set out by the case of Bonnard (supra). In Bonnard it
was decided that an interim injunction should not be awarded unless a defence
of justification by the defendant was certain to fail at trial level. The Court's
observations, widely applied in subsequent judgments are as follows:
“…[T]he subject-matter of an action for defamation is so special as to require
exceptional caution in exercising the jurisdiction to interfere by injunction
before the trial of an action to prevent an anticipated wrong. The right of free
speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should possess,
and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment, so long as no
wrongful act is done; and, unless an alleged libel is untrue, there is no wrong
committed; but, on the contrary, often a very wholesome act is performed in the
publication and repetition of an alleged libel. Until it is clear that an alleged
libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at all has been infringed; and the
importance of leaving free speech unfettered is a strong reason in cases of libel
for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of interim
injunctions… In the particular case before us, indeed, the libellous character of
the publication is beyond dispute, but the effect of it upon the Defendant can be
finally disposed of only by a jury, and we cannot feel sure that the defence of
justification is one which, on the facts which may be before them, the jury may
find to be wholly unfounded; nor can we tell what may be the damages
recoverable.”
Again, in Fraser v. Evans, [1969] 1 QB 349 Lord Denning MR stated the law
as follows:
“The court will not restrain the publication of an article, even though it is
defamatory, when the defendant says he intends to justify it or to make fair
comment on a matter of public interest. That has been established for many
years ever since Bonnard v. Perryman. The reason sometimes given is that the
defences of justification and fair comment are for the jury, which is the
constitutional tribunal, and not for a judge. But a better reason is the
importance in the public interest that the truth should out. … There is no wrong
done if it is true, or if [the alleged libel] is fair comment on a matter of public
_____________
Page 17/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
interest. The court will not prejudice the issue by granting an injunction in
advance of publication…”
Subsequently, in Crest Homes Ltd. v. Ascott, [1980] FSR 396 the Trial Judge
granted an interlocutory injunction against the defendant who said that he
would justify his assertions. Allowing the appeal and discharging the
injunction, the Court (CA) held:
“(1) There was no reason to depart from the general rule that an interlocutory
injunction will not be granted against a defendant in a libel action if he intends
to plead justification unless the plaintiff can prove that the statement is untrue;
(2) The plaintiff had not shown that the defendant's statement was untrue…the
line of authority is long and weighty that interlocutory injunctions in these
cases will not be granted unless the plaintiff shows that the defence of
justification will not succeed…”
In Herbage v. Pressdram Ltd., [1984] 1 WLR 1160 Griffiths LJ restated the
effect of the rule and then said (at p 1162H):
“These principles have evolved because of the value the court has placed on
freedom of speech and I think also on the freedom of the press, when balancing
it against the reputation of a single individual who, if wrong, can be
compensated in damages.”
He refused to water the principles down. After summarizing an argument by
counsel, which suggested that the combined effect of the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act 1974 and the decision of the House of Lords in American
Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] AC 396 justified a radical departure
from the rule, he went on to say (at p 1163B):
“If the court were to accept this argument, the practical effect would I believe
be that in very many cases the plaintiff would obtain an injunction, for on the
American Cyanamid principles he would often show a serious issue to be tried,
that damages would not be realistic compensation, and that the balance of
convenience favoured restraining repetition of the alleged libel until trial of the
action. It would thus be a very considerable incursion into the present rule
which is based on freedom of speech.”
_____________
Page 18/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
In Holley v. Smyth, [1998] QB 726, where the potency of the rule
(in Bonnard) was reaffirmed the Court reiterated the principle as follows:
“I accept that the court may be left with a residual discretion to decline to
apply the rule in Bonnard v. Perryman in exceptional circumstances. One
exception, recognised in that decision itself, is the case where the court is
satisfied that the defamatory statement is clearly untrue. In my judgment,
however, that is a discretion which must be exercised in accordance with
established principles.”
The Bonnard rule (against interim injunction restraining publication) was
affirmed in Martha Greene v. Associated Newspapers Ltd., [2004] EWCA Civ
1462, in the following terms, after quoting and relying on Halsbury's Laws of
England, 4th Ed, vol 28, para 167:
“The Law of Prior Restraint in Defamation Actions : the Rationale of the Rule
This survey of the case law shows that in an action for defamation a court will
not impose a prior restraint on publication unless it is clear that no defence
will succeed at the trial. This is partly due to the importance the court attaches
to freedom of speech. It is partly because a judge must not usurp the
constitutional function of the jury unless he is satisfied that there is no case to
go to a jury. The rule is also partly founded on the pragmatic grounds that until
there has been disclosure of documents and cross-examination at the trial a
court cannot safely proceed on the basis that what the defendants wish to say is
not true…”
….Because of the court's reluctance to fetter free speech and because the
questions that arise during the proceedings, such as whether the meaning is
defamatory, whether justification or fair comment are applicable and as to
malice, are generally for the jury, interlocutory injunctions are granted less
readily in defamation proceedings than in other matters and according to
different principles…”
29. From the above reasoning it follows that the Court will invariably not
grant an interim injunction to restrain the publication of defamatory material
as it would be unreasonable to fetter the freedom of speech before the full trial
takes place, where each of the parties can argue in detail with the help of
_____________
Page 19/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
additional evidence. Similarly in this matter, it is incumbent upon this Court to
decide whether it would be reasonable to fetter the reasonable criticism,
comment, and parody directed at the plaintiff, which to a large extent is
protected by the Constitutional guarantee to free speech, to all the citizens of
India. This point of view was also strengthened by a recent challenge to the old
common law rule of Bonnard in the case of Greene v. Associated Newspapers
Limited, 2005 (1) All.ER. 30, where it was decided that if it is a known fact that
the true validity of the defamation claims will only be tested at trial level then it
would only be appropriate for the Court not to award an interim injunction to
the plaintiffs as it would otherwise put an unreasonable burden on the concept
of free speech. After an elaborate survey of the law on the issue, it was held
that:
“This survey of the case law shows that in an action for defamation a court
will not impose a prior restraint on publication unless it is clear that no
defence will succeed at the trial. This is partly due to the importance the court
attaches to freedom of speech. It is partly because a judge must not usurp the
constitutional function of the jury unless he is satisfied that there is no case to
go to a jury. The rule is also partly founded on the pragmatic grounds that until
there has been disclosure of documents and cross-examination at the trial a
court cannot safely proceed on the basis that what the defendants wish to say is
not true. And if it is or might be true the court has no business to stop them
saying it. This is another way of putting the point made by Sir John Donaldson
MR in Khashoggi, to the effect that a court cannot know whether the plaintiff
has a right to his/her reputation until the trial process has shown where the
truth lies. And if the defence fails, the defendants will have to pay damages
(which in an appropriate case may includes aggravated and/or exemplary
damages as well)”.
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., reported in (1994) 6 SCC 632 at page 649,
wherein it was held as under:
"26. We may now summarise the broad principles flowing from the
above discussion:
_____________
Page 20/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
(1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed
to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a “right to be let alone”. A
citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage,
procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters.
None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent
— whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does
so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and
would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different,
if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites
or raises a controversy.
(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication
concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication
is based upon public records including court records. This is for the reason
that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no
longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and
media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of
decency [Article 19(2)] an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a
female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like
offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the
incident being publicised in press/media.
(3) There is yet another exception to the rule in (1) above — indeed, this is
not an exception but an independent rule. In the case of public officials, it is
obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter, the remedy of action for damages
is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the
discharge of their official duties. This is so even where the publication is
based upon facts and statements which are not true, unless the official
establishes that the publication was made (by the defendant) with reckless
disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be enough for the defendant
(member of the press or media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable
verification of the facts; it is not necessary for him to prove that what he has
written is true. Of course, where the publication is proved to be
false and actuated by malice or personal animosity, the defendant would
have no defence and would be liable for damages. It is equally obvious that in
matters not relevant to the discharge of his duties, the public official enjoys
the same protection as any other citizen, as explained in (1) and (2) above. It
needs no reiteration that judiciary, which is protected by the power to punish
for contempt of court and Parliament and legislatures protected as their
privileges are by Articles 105 and 104 respectively of the Constitution of
India, represent exceptions to this rule.
(4) So far as the Government, local authority and other organs and
institutions exercising governmental power are concerned, they cannot
maintain a suit for damages for defaming them.
_____________
Page 21/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
(5) Rules 3 and 4 do not, however, mean that Official Secrets Act, 1923, or
any similar enactment or provision having the force of law does not bind the
press or media.
(6) There is no law empowering the State or its officials to prohibit, or to
impose a prior restraint upon the press/media."
4.Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 637 , wherein it was
held as under:
32. We need to distinguish between the internet as a tool and the freedom of
expression through the internet. There is no dispute that freedom of speech and
expression includes the right to disseminate information to as wide a section of
the population as is possible. The wider range of circulation of information or
its greater impact cannot restrict the content of the right nor can it justify its
denial. (Refer to Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Assn. of
Bengal [Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal,
(1995) 2 SCC 161] and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [Shreya
Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 449] .)
33. The development of the jurisprudence in protecting the medium for
expression can be traced to Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India [Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 121] , wherein this
Court had declared that the freedom of print medium is covered under the
freedom of speech and expression. In Odyssey Communications (P)
Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana [Odyssey Communications (P)
Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, (1988) 3 SCC 410] , it was held that the right
of citizens to exhibit films on Doordarshan, subject to the terms and conditions
to be imposed by the Doordarshan, is a part of the fundamental right of
freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), which can be
curtailed only under circumstances set out under Article 19(2). Further, this
Court expanded this protection to the use of airwaves in Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting [Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161] . In this context,
we may note that this Court, in a catena of judgments, has recognised free
speech as a fundamental right, and, as technology has evolved, has recognised
the freedom of speech and expression over different media of expression.
Expression through the internet has gained contemporary relevance and is one
of the major means of information diffusion. Therefore, the freedom of speech
and expression through the medium of internet is an integral part of Article
19(1)(a) and accordingly, any restriction on the same must be in accordance
with Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
34. In this context, we need to note that the internet is also a very important
tool for trade and commerce. The globalisation of the Indian economy and the
_____________
Page 22/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
rapid advances in information and technology have opened up vast business
avenues and transformed India as a global IT hub. There is no doubt that there
are certain trades which are completely dependent on the internet. Such a
right of trade through internet also fosters consumerism and availability of
choice. Therefore, the freedom of trade and commerce through the medium of
the internet is also constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(g), subject to
the restrictions provided under Article 19(6).
35. None of the counsel have argued for declaring the right to access the
internet as a fundamental right and therefore we are not expressing any view
on the same. We are confining ourselves to declaring that the right to freedom
of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to carry on any
trade or business under Article 19(1)(g), using the medium of internet is
constitutionally protected.
36. Having explained the nature of fundamental rights and the utility of
internet under Article 19 of the Constitution, we need to concern ourselves
with respect to limitations provided under the Constitution on these rights.
With respect to the freedom of speech and expression, restrictions are provided
under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which read as under:
“19. (2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the
operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making
any law, insofar as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of
the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence.”
37. The right provided under Article 19(1) has certain exceptions, which
empower the State to impose reasonable restrictions in appropriate cases. The
ingredients of Article 19(2) of the Constitution are that:
(a) The action must be sanctioned by law;
(b) The proposed action must be a reasonable restriction;
(c) Such restriction must be in furtherance of interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence.
38. At the outset, the imposition of restriction is qualified by the term
“reasonable” and is limited to situations such as interests of the sovereignty,
integrity, security, friendly relations with the foreign States, public order,
decency or morality or contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an
offence. Reasonability of a restriction is used in a qualitative, quantitative and
relative sense.
39. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the restrictions
_____________
Page 23/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
under Article 19 of the Constitution cannot mean complete prohibition. In this
context, we may note that the aforesaid contention cannot be sustained in light
of a number of judgments of this Court wherein the restriction has also been
held to include complete prohibition in appropriate cases. [Madhya Bharat
Cotton Assn. Ltd. v. Union of India [Madhya Bharat Cotton Assn.
Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 634] , Narendra Kumar v. Union of
India [Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, (1960) 2 SCR 375 : AIR 1960 SC
430] , State of Maharashtra v. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao [State of
Maharashtra v. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao, (1969) 2 SCR 392 : AIR 1970
SC 1157] , Sushila Saw Mill v. State of Orissa [Sushila Saw Mill v. State of
Orissa, (1995) 5 SCC 615] , Pratap Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Union of
India [Pratap Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 87]
and Dharam Dutt v. Union of India [Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1
SCC 712]. ]
The judgment of the New York court in Time Inc. v. Hill decided on
09.01.1967, wherein, it was held as under:
"If this is meant to imply that proof of knowing or reckless falsity
is not essential to a constitutional application of the statute in these cases,
we disagree with the Court of Appeals. We hold that the constitutional
protections for speech and press preclude the application of the New York
statute to redress false reports of matters of public interest in the absence
of proof that the defendant published the report with knowledge of its
falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth."
The learned senior counsel for the 1
st
defendant, referred to the above judgments
and contended that unless the plaintiff establishes that the photos, videos and the
interviews were uploaded by the 1
st
defendant with reckless disregard for truth,
the same need not be removed.
_____________
Page 24/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
20. Mr.S.Prabhakaran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1
st
defendant, in the course of the final arguments submitted that the 1
st
defendant
has given birth to the child on 31.10.2025. Though the plaintiff disputes the
paternity and claims that the DNA results alone will reveal the paternity, even
the said fact has to be determined before a different judicial forum.
21. Heard the learned senior counsels on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
22. The first interim prayer is for an interim injunction against the 1
st
defendant to protect the plaintiff's personality rights. The second prayer is a
continuation of the first prayer which is against the John Doe/s. It is more
crucial to look into the contention raised by the plaintiff in paragraph 9 where
the plaintiff submitted the following:
"9. The plaintiff respectfully submits that the 1st defendant
initially approached him by introducing herself as a professional
costume designer during December, 2023, projecting that she was
capable of assisting him in matters relating to his costume
designing requirements. Believing such representations to be
genuine and bona fide, and without being aware of the ulterior
motives of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff reposed trust in her and
extended friendship in good faith. However, the 1st defendant,
under the guise of such professional association, with malafide
intention to extract unlawful monetary and other benefits from the
_____________
Page 25/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
plaintiff, and by abusing the trust reposed in her, deceitfully
induced the plaintiff into a relationship of confidence."
The plaintiff himself has made an averment about the relationship between the
plaintiff and the first defendant which is nothing but a physical relationship
between them. The plaintiff is a married man, living with his wife and children
and the first defendant is also a married woman. The plaintiff is making an
attempt to keep in dark, the relationship which was exposed by the first
defendant. The claim of the plaintiff is that he is a very innocent man having no
knowledge about the consequence of having a relationship with a woman.
23. The present suit itself is came to be filed when the first defendant
started calling out the plaintiff who had physical relationship with her, by
making false promises. The plaintiff has candidly admitted that there existed a
relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant and the plaintiff has not
denied the marriage photos and other photographs taken by the plaintiff and the
first defendant which shows their intimacy. The plaintiff claims that the first
defendant with malicious intention to defame the plaintiff has deliberately given
interviews to various media and television on 29.02.2025 and thereafter, the
interviews of the first defendant was screened, telecasted and uploaded in the
_____________
Page 26/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
social media channels like X, facebook, Youtube, Instagram and other social
medias. While the plaintiff has not denied the relationship which existed
between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the first defendant claims that she
was impregnated on three occasions, namely September 2024, December, 2024
and April 2025.
24. The strange fact in the case of the first defendant is that the divorce
was granted to the first defendant and her first husband on 16.07.2024 but the
marriage between the plaintiff and the first defendant has taken place on
24.12.2023. The said marriage was solemnised at Thiruveedhiamman Temple.
The first defendant had claimed that the plaintiff has projected himself as a
divorcee who is separated from his legally wedded wife. When the marriage
between the plaintiff and his first wife is in force, the plaintiff suppressing the
existence of such marriage, has married the first defendant on 24.12.2023. The
submissions on both sides would only show that neither the plaintiff nor the first
defendant is in a healthy relationship which exist between a man and woman.
The bare denial of cohabitation by the plaintiff with the first defendant is
nothing but an attempt to escape from the clutches of law. The photographs,
videos and Whatsapp chats which were shared by the first defendant on the
_____________
Page 27/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
social media and the interview given by the first defendant exposing her cause
with regard to her relationship with the plaintiff makes it clear that there exist a
substantial issue between the parties. The validity of the marriage between the
plaintiff and the first defendant which has taken place on 24.12.2023 as claimed
by the first defendant is a subject matter which is out of the purview of this
court.
25. In support of her claim, the 1
st
defendant relied upon a lease
agreement entered into between one Mrs. Anandhi L and Madhampatty
Thangavelu Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., dated 27.02.2024 in respect of a residential
building. The plaintiff has signed the said agreement in which the relationship
between the plaintiff and the 1
st
defendant is mentioned as husband and wife.
The 1
st
defendant had enclosed her medical records running from Page No.15 to
27. Page No.29, the scan report of the first defendant related to pregnancy is
enclosed.
26. The first defendant relied on the photographs which were taken on
24.12.2023, when the marriage was solemnised in a temple, more specifically, in
Page No.129 of the typed set dated 06.10.2025 at Page Nos.129 & 130. The
_____________
Page 28/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
conversation between plaintiff and the first defendant in Whatsapp has also been
filed by the first defendant in the typed set which are very personal.
27. Though the plaintiff claims that he was threatened by using the
photos, videos and chats had been uploaded on the social media, there is no iota
of material produced by the plaintiff to show that he has preferred a police
complaint as against the first defendant in respect of the threat, coercion or a
malicious/scandalous allegations have been levelled against the plaintiff. There
is not even a legal notice issued by the plaintiff asking the first defendant to
refrain from uploading such videos and photographs.
28. In the typed set dated 03.09.2025 filed by the plaintiff, page Nos.15 to
22, are YouTube thumbnails showing various YouTube channels discussing the
issues between the plaintiff and the 1
st
defendant as a consequence of the
interviews, statements, posts and the story uploaded by the first defendant on
various social media platforms. In the same typed set, in page No.20, the
photographs showing the plaintiff and the first defendant as a bride and groom
with a smiling face are annexed. In the said photographs, the groom, who is the
plaintiff herein is wearing silk shirt and silk dhoti and the bride and groom are
_____________
Page 29/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
wearing several new garlands in the manner how a wedding couple would be
dressed on the day of their wedding.
29. At page No.21, the screenshot of photos and videos about the
relationship between the parties are enclosed. These kind of photographs and
videos are uploaded and widely debated on the social media by several youtube
channels. According to the plaintiff, all these videos and photographs are
uploaded by the first defendant. In the first additional typed set dated
22.09.2025 filed by plaintiff, page Nos.1 and 2 shows the photographs of the
plaintiff and the first defendant taken privately. The plaintiff has given 75 links
at Page Nos.17 and 18, which are the links to the YouTube videos in which
several interviews given by the first defendant are telecasted. At page 19 of the
said additional typed set, the first defendant has given an interview which is
titled as "Video va remove panna solranga". This news was aired in Thanthi TV,
Sun News, News 18, NewsTamil 24x7, Polimer News, Malaimurasu Tv 24X7,
Sathiyam News, etc.
30. In the second additional typed set filed by the plaintiff dated
22.09.2025, Whatsapp messages between the first defendant and one mobile
_____________
Page 30/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
number +919047770009, which according to the plaintiff belongs to his wife are
annexed. In the said Whatsapp conversation between the first defendant and the
wife of the plaintiff, the 1
st
defendant has sent text messages asserting her claim
with regard to her relationship with the plaintiff, more specifically her status as a
wife of the plaintiff.
31. In the third additional typed set filed by the plaintiff, 141 websites
which has transmitted, aired, telecasted the interviews and discussions the social
media platforms are given. The plaintiff relied upon a letter, which, according
to the plaintiff is written by the first defendant which starts with a title Day 10.
In the said hand written letter, the 1
st
defendant had narrated her wishes by
mentioning the plaintiff as her husband. The said letter has no addresses or any
signature, it is only a manuscript. Several photographs are enclosed
commencing from Page No.4 to 30 without any clarity as to whether these
photographs were posted on Instagram or twitter or facebook or in any of the
YouTube channels.
32. The averments in the plaint would only prima facie show that there
existed a physical relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant who
_____________
Page 31/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
are not only grown up adults, they are married and having children who are
conscious about the impact and the consequence of having a physical
relationship out of the marital life which have resulted in the plaintiff and the
first defendant to trade charges against each other. The photos filed by the first
defendant exhibits the absolute happiness in the face of the plaintiff and the first
defendant when these photographs and videos were taken during their pleasant
moments. The photos on birthday celebration of the plaintiff which was
uploaded by the 1
st
defendant on the social media also reflects the most joyful
moments shared by the plaintiff with the first defendant in celebrating his
birthday with the first defendant during late night in a beach. These photographs
and videos cannot be brushed aside on a mere statement that all these photos and
videos and Whatsapp chats are fabricated and concocted. This kind of a bare
denial of relationship cannot be permitted.
33. It is to be taken note that the first defendant had started posting the
photos, videos and Whatsapp chats on various social media only after the
indifferent attitude exhibited by the plaintiff as against the first defendant. It is
not only the plaintiff who has gained a tall reputation in the society as a
celebrated chef, equally, the first defendant is also a professional constume
_____________
Page 32/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
designer who was taken by him to several important functions. Therefore, the
first defendant's reputation is also damaged because of the relationship between
the plaintiff and the first defendant. The plaintiff alone cannot claim that his
image has been tarnished by the first defendant.
34. It is the 1
st
defendant’s claim that after impregnating the 1
st
defendant,
the plaintiff had shed away their relationship . Therefore, to assert her
relationship with the plaintiff, the first defendant has uploaded all the videos and
photographs, whatsapp chats on the social media which has resulted in re-
telecast by news channels, youtubers as a news item. None of the second
defendant had approached neither the plaintiff nor the first defendant about their
story. The parties themselves have been washing their dirty linen in public.
35. It is to be noted that based on the complaint of the first defendant, a
case has been registered as against the plaintiff in CCB-I in Crime No.179 of
2025 dated 08.10.2025 for an offence under Section 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS,
2023. In the complaint given by the first defendant to the Tamil Nadu State
Women's Commission in Roc No.5118/WC/A1/2025 dated 09.10.2025, the
_____________
Page 33/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
following order was passed by the said Commission. The relevant portion is
extracted hereunder:
"13. In the above circumstances, this commission recommends
the Deputy Commissioner of Crime Against Women and Children to
have criminal prosecution against Mr.Madhampatty Rangaraj
effectively with adequate sections under Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women(Amendment) Act, 2025, BNS Act.
1. To give adequate protection to the complainant from
Mr.Madhampatty Rangaraj and his henchmen.
2. Protect the identity of the victim and her right to privacy in
accordance with law
3. To initiate criminal prosecution against Mr.Sharma the
Manager of Mr.Madhampatty Rangaraj for outraging the modesty of
the complainant in public place."
36. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women, which is a satutory
body before whom, the plaintiff had appeared and had given a statement that he
had married the first defendant and the child in the womb of the first defendant
belongs to the plaintiff. Though this fact has been denied by way of a statement
issued by the plaintiff, the order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Commission for
Women has not been challenged as on date. Therefore, when the plaintiff has
admitted that he had married the first defendant and she is carrying his child in
her womb is an undisputed observation of the Commission.
37. It is relevant to discuss the order of this court made in O.A. No.525 of
2025 and A. No.2424 of 2025 in C.S. No.111 of 2025 dated 23.05.2025, which
_____________
Page 34/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
is relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff. In the said order,
this court has held as follows:
1. Charity begins at home. The applicant wants to restrain the
respondents from defaming him. He also wants them to take down
the defamatory material posted by them in the online world. The
applicant is the husband of the first respondent and son-in-law of the
second respondent. There is a biblical saying that one should do to
others what he / she would want them to do to him / her. Negatively
put, one should not do to others what he / she would not want them
to do to him / her. The applicant herein does not want the
respondents to defame him. Fair enough. But the applicant also
should conduct himself likewise. When this was put to the Senior
Counsel for the applicant, he readily conceded. Both parties
undertook to refrain from damaging each others' name in public.
They informed the Court that they would fight out their battles within
the four corners of the Court hall. In terms of the undertaking given
by the parties through their respective senior counsel, both sides are
henceforth restrained from making any statement against each other
in public. This restraint order will hold good till the conclusion of
this civil suit. Both sides are further directed to take down the posts
made by them against each other in social media already. The
request to take down the offending posts shall be made immediately
and the concerned social media platforms shall comply with the
request without any delay.
4.The applicant and the first respondent got married on
04.06.2009 and two male children were born from the wedlock. Their
marital relationship is under severe strain. Since the applicant is a
celebrity, the issue has evoked public attention. Both the parties have
gone hammer and tongs at each other. The footprints of the negative
campaign are there for all to see in the virtual world. I am worried
about the impact it will have on the psychological health of the
children. Article 8 of ECHR states that everyone has the right to
respect for his private and family life. Article 16 of the United
Nations Convention on the rights of the child states that no child
shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or
her privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to unlawful attacks
on his or her honour and reputation. The child has the right to
_____________
Page 35/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
protection of the law against such interference or attacks. This
convention was ratified by Government of India in 1992 itself.
Article 51 of the Indian Constitution emphasises on the need to foster
respect for international law and treaty obligations. Section 9(2) of
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 mandates that a Data
Fiduciary shall not undertake such processing of personal data that
is likely to cause detrimental effect on the wellbeing of a child. I
referred to these provisions only to emphasise the need to bear in
mind the paramount interests of the children in such matters.
5.What is at stake is the right to reputation and privacy of the
parties concerned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in Sukhwant
Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2009) 7 SCC 559 that the reputation of a
person is one's valuable asset and is a facet of his right under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. Privacy too has been declared as a
fundamental right flowing out of the same article (K.S.Puttaswamy
Vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1). In Kaushal Kishor vs. State of
U.P (2023) 4 SCC 1, it was declared that a fundamental right under
Articles 19 / 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the
state or its instrumentality. Thus, there can be a horizontal
application of the fundamental right to reputation and privacy even
against private entities.
38. It is to be noted that in the above said judgment, it is an order by
consent, where the court has passed a blanket injunction against the second
defendant not to air the news as the parties in the above referred case have given
their consent to refrain from airing the personal affairs of their life, based on
which, an injunction was granted. But the said factum is different from the
present case where the first defendant continuously approached the social media
and posted all these matters on the social media which are of material evidence
as per Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
_____________
Page 36/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
39. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, also relied upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court of United Kingdom in PJS v News Group
Newspapers Ltd, decided on 19.05.2016, wherein, it was observed as under:
“4. We can for the most part take the facts from Jackson LJ's judgment in the
Court of Appeal. PJS, the claimant (now the appellant) is in the entertainment
business and is married to YMA, a well-known individual in the same
business. They have young children. In 2007 or 2008, the claimant met AB
and, starting in 2009, they had occasional sexual encounters. AB had a
partner, CD. By text message on 15 December 2011, the claimant asked if CD
was "up for a three-way", to which AB replied that CD was. The three then
had a three-way sexual encounter, after which the sexual relationship between
PJS and AB came to an end, though they remained friends for some time.
5. By or in early January 2016, AB and CD approached the editor of the Sun
on Sunday, and told him about their earlier sexual encounters with PJS. The
editor notified PJS that he proposed to publish the story. PJS's case is that
publication would breach confidence and invade privacy. He brought the
present proceedings accordingly, and applied for an interim injunction to
restrain the proposed publication.
22. That criticism of supposed infidelity cannot be the guise under which the
media can disclose kiss and tell stories of no public interest in a legal sense is
confirmed by a series of European Court of Human Rights ("ECtHR")
judgments. Thus, in Armonienė v Lithuania [2009] EMLR 7, para 39, the
Court emphasised the duty of the press to impart information and ideas on
matters of public interest, but noted that
"a fundamental distinction needs to be made between reporting
facts even if controversial - capable of contributing to a debate
in a democratic society and making tawdry allegations about
an individual's private life";
In Mosley v United Kingdom [2012] EMLR 1, para 114, the Court reiterated that
"there is a distinction to be drawn between reporting facts even
if controversial capable of contributing to a debate of general
public interest in a democratic society, and making tawdry
_____________
Page 37/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
allegations about an individual's private life (see Armonienė,
para 39). In respect of the former, the pre-eminent role of the
press in a democracy and its duty to act as a 'public watchdog'
are important considerations in favour of a narrow
construction of any limitations on freedom of expression.
However, different considerations apply to press reports
concentrating on sensational and, at times, lurid news,
intended to titillate and entertain, which are aimed at satisfying
the curiosity of a particular readership regarding aspects of a
person's strictly private life (Von Hannover v Germany (2005)
40 EHRR 1, para 65; Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS)
v France, no 12268/03, para 40; and MGN Ltd v United
Kingdom (2001) 53 EHRR 5, para 143). Such reporting does
not attract the robust protection of article 10 afforded to the
press. As a consequence, in such cases, freedom of expression
requires a more narrow interpretation (see Société Prisma
Presse v France (dec), nos 66910/01 and 71612/01, 1 July
2003, Von Hannover, cited above, para 66. Leempoel & SA E
Ciné Revue v Belgium, no 64772/01, para 77, 9 November
2006, Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS), cited above,
para 40, and MGN Ltd, cited above, para 143."
23. Most recently, in Coudere and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v France
Application No 40454/07), paras 100-101, the Court said:
100. The Court has also emphasised on numerous occasions
that, although the public has a right to be informed, and this is
an essential right in a democratic society which, in certain
special circumstances, can even extend to aspects of the
private life of public figures, articles aimed solely at satisfying
the curiosity of a particular readership regarding the details of
a person's private life, however well-known that person might
be, cannot be deemed to contribute to any debate of general
interest to society (see Von Hannover, cited above, para 65,
MGN Ltd v United Kingdom, no 39401/04, para 143, 18
January 2011; and Alkaya v Turkey, no. 42811/06, para 35, 9
October 2012).
101. Thus, an article about the alleged extra-marital
relationships of high-profile public figures who were senior
State officials contributed only to the propagation of rumors,
serving merely to satisfy the curiosity of a certain readership
(see Standard Verlags GmbH v Austria (No 2), no 21277/05,
_____________
Page 38/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
para 52, 4 June 2009). Equally, the publication of
photographs showing scenes from the daily life of a princess
who exercised no official functions was aimed merely at
satisfying the curiosity of a particular readership (see Von
Hannover, cited above, para 65, with further references). The
Court reiterates in this connection that the public interest
cannot be reduced to the public's thirst for information about
the private life of others, or to the reader's wish for
sensationalism or even voyeurism.”
58. However, claims based on respect for privacy and family life do not
depend on confidentiality (or secrecy) alone. As Tugendhat J said in Goodwin
v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EMLR 502, para 85, "[t]he right to
respect for private life embraces more than one concept". He went on to cite
with approval a passage written by Dr Moreham in Law of Privacy and the
Media (2nd ed (2011), edited by Warby, Moreham and Christie), in which she
summarised "the two core components of the rights to privacy" as "unwanted
access to private information and unwanted access to [or intrusion into]
one's ... personal space" what Tugendhat J characterised as "confidentiality"
and "intrusion".
60. Perusal of those decisions establishes that there is a clear, principle and
consistent approach at first instance when it comes to balancing the media's
freedom of expression and an individual's rights in respect of confidentiality
and intrusion. There has been not even a hint of disapproval of that approach
by the Court of Appeal (although it considered appeals in McKennitt [2008]
QB 73 and JIH [2011] 1 WLR 1645). Indeed, unsurprisingly, there has been
no argument that we should take the opportunity to overrule or depart from
them. Accordingly, it seems to me that it is appropriate for this Court to
adhere to the approach in those cases. Not only do they demonstrate a clear
and consistent approach, but they are decisions of judges who are highly
respected, and, at least in the main, highly experienced in the field of media
law and practice; and they were mostly decided at a time when access to the
internet was easily available to the great majority of people in the United
Kingdom.
73. This means that, at trial, the court will have to consider carefully the
nature and extent of the likely harm to the children's interests which will
result in the short, medium and longer terms from the publication of this
information about one of their parents. At present, there is no evidence about
this. It is possible that, at trial, the evidence will not support any risk of harm
to the children's interests from publication of the story in the English print
_____________
Page 39/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
and broadcasting media. It is possible that the evidence will indicate that the
children can be protected from any such risk, by a combination of the efforts
of their parents, teachers and others who look after them and some voluntary
restraint on the part of the media.
74.On the other hand, it is also possible that the evidence will support a risk
of harm to the children's interests from the invasion of their own and their
parents' privacy, a risk from which it will be extremely difficult to protect
them. There is all the difference in the world between the sort of wall to wall
publicity and intrusion which is likely to meet the lifting of this injunction and
their learning this information in due course, which the Court of Appeal
thought inevitable. For one thing, the least harmful way for these children to
learn of these events is from their parents. Their parents have the resources to
take wise professional advice about how to reveal and explain matters to their
children in an age-appropriate way and at the age-appropriate time. No
doubt their parents are already giving careful thought to whether this might
be the best way of protecting their children, especially from the spike of
interest which is bound to result from this judgment let alone from any future
judgment. The particular features which are relevant to the balancing
exercise in this case are contained in three short paragraphs in the
unredacted version of this judgment. These unfortunately have to be redacted
because it would be comparatively easy to surmise the identity of the children
and their parents from them. There are particular reasons why care should be
taken about how, when and why these children should learn the truth.”
40. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, referred to the above
judgment and contended that the media is circulating certain aspects of the
plaintiff’s personal life to satisfy the curiosity of some readers. He further
contended that such kind of publications does not attract the protection given
under the law. Therefore, the defamatory content against the plaintiff, which are
circulated in the social media platforms has to be taken down.
41. The above judgment will not come to the rescue of the plaintiff, for a
simple reason that the issue involved in the present case did not originate from a
_____________
Page 40/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
random publication made in a newspaper or a social media platform. The
photos, videos and the interviews, which are the main cause for filing of the
present suit has been uploaded online by the 1
st
defendant who claims that the
plaintiff has left her in the lurch after impregnating her. Therefore, the above
judgment is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
42. The crocodile tears shed by the plaintiff disputing the marriage,
physical relationship, photographs, videos, Whatsapp chats emanated only when
the first defendant aired everything on the social media on 29.08.2025. Several
typed sets were filed by the first defendant showing intimate photographs that
have been taken by the plaintiff and the first defendant, which would only show
that there existed a relationship. As already pointed out supra, the plaintiff
himself has clandestinely admitted the existence of a relationship between the
parties at paragraph 9 of the Plaint.
43. No doubt, the first defendant has produced so many photographs,
videos, whatsapp chats which were uploaded in the social media by the first
defendant and the issue has been subsequently debated by several news
channels, magazines and youtubers. The genuineness of all these photos, videos
_____________
Page 41/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
etc.., are to be determined only by letting in evidence and these are all matter for
trial. As the first defendant has produced intimate photographs taken with the
plaintiff, the police complaint as against the plaintiff and the finding given by
the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women are all material factors which are
steering against the plaintiff, who cannot abridge the evidentiary value of the
said materials by claiming it to be fake or obtain protection by seeking an
injunction in present suit.
44. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment delivered by the High Court of
Delhi in C.S.(OS) No.2662 of 2011, wherein, the right to publicity has been
defined as the right to control commercial use of human identity. The relevant
paragraph is extracted hereunder:
II. Publicity right of a celebrity:
A celebrity is defined as a famous or a well-known
person. A 'celebrity' is merely a person who 'many' people talk
about or know about. When the identity of a famous personality
is used in advertising without their permission, the complaint is
not that no one should not commercialise their identity but that
the right to control when, whee and how their identity is used
should vest with the famouns personality. The right to control
commercial use of human identity is the right to publicity.
_____________
Page 42/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
45. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and others reported in (2020)
3 SCC 637, the Hon'ble Supreme court in paragraph 33 of the judgment has held
that the freedom of speech and expression through the medium of internet is an
integral part of Article 19(1)(a) and accordingly, any restriction on the same
must be in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
46. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that as freedom of
speech under Article 19(1)(a) is a fundamental right, there can be reasonable
restrictions under Article 19(2), however, there cannot be a blanket order to
restrict or refrain the rights of the individual to express their views. It is to be
noted that the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the 1
st
defendant
would make it clear that the fundamental right to speech is the right conferred
on every single citizen and if the personality rights of the plaintiff is violated by
circulation of content concerning his personal life in the social media, the
plaintiff has to approach the court and establish the commercial exploitation of
the personality rights using the said content by the respective persons.
47. However, the plaintiff has only identified the second defendant with
several links to the YouTube channels and other social media platforms.
_____________
Page 43/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
Absolutely, there is no material before this court except the photographs and the
links. Merely furnishing the links and photographs will not be sufficient for the
court to prima facie come to the conclusion that there is a violation of
personality rights of the applicant/plaintiff and in the absence of any specific
allegation made with regard to commercial gain to the defendants, the claim
made by the applicant/plaintiff seeking an injunction is against the settled
principles on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
48. The plaintiff is only making an attempt to shut the voice of the
individuals or the social media who are airing their views which are against him.
Therefore, the claim made by the plaintiff is hereby rejected. Consequently, the
prayer sought as against the second defendant for a blanket direction to remove
the videos, photographs, Whatsapp chats, Instagram posts and debates on the
issues between the plaintiff and the first defendant cannot be granted. As the
plaintiff has not prima facie established his case as against the defendants 1 and
2 and as the balance of convenience and irreparable injury are in favour of the
1
st
defendant, both the interim prayers are rejected.
49. In view of the above discussions, both the applications are dismissed.
No costs. Post the Suit in the usual course.
_____________
Page 44/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.A. No.948 of 2025
07.01.2026
Asr
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Asr
O.A. No.948 of 2025 & A. No.4798 of 2025
in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.250 of 2025
Dated : 07.01.2026
_____________
Page 45/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Legal Notes
Add a Note....