Madras High Court Restrains Media From Reporting Actor Jayam Ravi's Matrimonial Dispute, Directs Take Down Of Defamatory Content

Passing a “John Doe order”, Justice GR Swaminathan noted that though the matrimonial dispute between the parties had no public element in it, since he was a celebrity, every information was magnified and distorted in a sleazy manner. Thus, considering the necessity to protect the privacy of the children of the couple, the court thought it fit to retrain the media.

“The media, both print as well as online are restrained from posting or hosting or debating any information concerning the matrimonial dispute between the applicant / plaintiff and the first respondent / defendant. The online portals and websites are directed to take down the offending / defamatory contents pertaining to the matrimonial dispute between the applicant / plaintiff and the first respondent / defendant,” the court ordered.

The court relied on the decision of the Supeme Court of United Kingdon in PJS v. News Group Newspapers Limited (2016), wherein the court had interfered to preserve the privacy interest of the parties and their young children pending trial. Following this ratio, the court noted that it had a duty to protect the right of the children who were caught in between the dispute.

“Not only the parties herein but the children born from the wedlock from the applicant and the first respondent have the right to privacy. Once this right is acknowledged, it is the Court's duty to enforce the same. This right cannot be frustrated merely because as of now, it is not possible to exhaustively catalogue the names of persons who may infringe or who have infringed this right,” the court said.

The court passed the order on an application filed by Ravi seeking to restrain Aarthi and her mother from making defamatory statements against him. While granting him relief, the court also remarked that Ravi should also conduct himself likewise, adding that one should not do to others what one would not want them to do to him.

“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,” the court said.

As Ravi readily agreed to the direction, the court restrained both the parties from making defamatory comments against each other in media and also asked them to take down all the posts made against each other already.

At this point, Ravi's counsel also urged the court to pass a 'super injunction order' and pass a general restraint order against both print and online media. He pointed out that even if the parties abide by the undertaking, the media would not keep quiet and there was a possibility of inspired leaks and sponsored reporting from either side.

The court wondered if it could pass an injunction order against the media or unknown defendants who were not present before the court. The court noted that there was no impediment against passing a John Doe order, which was an exparte order issued against unidentified persons preventing them from indulging in activities breaching the copyright of applicants. The court added that John Doe ordered could be issued not to uphold copyright but also to protect right and reputation .

“I do not see any impediment. What are John Doe (or Ashok Kumar) orders then? They are exparte orders issued against unidentified people preventing them from indulging in activities that breach the copyrights of the applicants. John Doe orders are issued not only to uphold copyrights but also to protect the right to reputation and privacy,” the court observed.

Thus, the court restrained the media from posting about the matrimonial dispute. The court also asked the registry to mark a copy of the order to the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to ensure prompt and effective compliance.

Counsel for Applicant: Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu Senior Counsel for M/s. S. Karthikei Balan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. J. Ravindran, Senior Counsel for Ms.S.P.Arthi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 179