Why Madras High Court quoted renowned poet Thiruvalluvar to deny gag order in personality rights case

Opening its order with a pointed invocation of a classical couplet by ancient Tamil saint Thiruvalluvar on moral restraint and extra-marital conduct, the Madras High Court has refused to grant interim injunctions sought by a chef and entrepreneur against a costume designer.

A bench of Justice N Senthilkumar was hearing interim applications filed by the man and refused to restrain the woman designer, among others from publishing or circulating posts, interviews, photographs and videos relating to their relationship.

The court was informed that the man was in a relationship with the designer while allegedly being married.

“The 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,” the court on January 7 said.

The Madras High Court said that the chef has to approach the court and establish the commercial exploitation of the personality rights using the said content by the respective persons. (File photo)

The court in the beginning of the verdict said that the famous poet Thiruvalluvar had stated 2000 years ago in a sacred couplet about the extra marital relationship of a man beyond the marriage life with his wife and its consequences.

It said that the chef has to approach the court and establish the commercial exploitation of the personality rights using the said content by the respective persons.

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 chef, the bench added.

The court said that in the absence of any specific allegation made with regard to commercial gain to the defendants, the claim made by him seeking an injunction is against the settled principles on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

The bench said that it 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 against the second defendant (John Does) 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,” it said.

The applicant, who is a well-known figure in the hospitality industry and entertainment space, moved the high court for a permanent and interim injunctions against the designer from posting, publishing or circulating any content that allegedly defamed him or disparaged his personality rights.

He also sought directions for the removal of specific Instagram posts and restraint orders against unnamed third parties (“John Does”) who had allegedly amplified the content across social media platforms, television channels and digital media.

The suit was filed without pre-litigation mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, with the plaintiff claiming that the dispute involved commercial exploitation of his reputation and goodwill.

Senior advocate Srinath Sridevan, appearing for the chef, argued that his client and the designer were only professionally associated, with her initially approaching him as a costume designer.

The counsel said that she allegedly misused the trust reposed in her and later began posting photographs, videos and interviews falsely projecting that they were married.

The viral spread of this content triggered what he described as a “media trial,” causing ridicule, reputational damage and substantial commercial loss to his catering business.

The content, he argued, was malicious, defamatory and amounted to unlawful commercial exploitation of his personality rights.

Senior advocate S Prabhakaran, representing the designer, however, informed the court that she and the man were in a consensual relationship that culminated in a marriage in December 2023, after he allegedly represented himself as divorced.

Her social media posts and media interviews were not defamatory inventions but disclosures of lived reality made after repeated attempts to seek accountability failed, he said.

He said that gag orders at this stage would amount to suppression of truth and misuse of defamation law to silence a woman raising allegations of serious misconduct.