No takedown of social media posts without proof of commercial exploitation of personality rights: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that a celebrity’s personality rights cannot be invoked to secure a blanket gag order at the interim stage in the absence of prima facie material showing commercial exploitation, reiterating that free speech protections under the Constitution cannot be curtailed without sufficient legal basis.

Justice N Senthilkumar dismissed interim applications filed by celebrity chef and entrepreneur T Rangaraj seeking to restrain costume designer Joy Crizildaa and others from publishing or circulating social media posts, interviews, photographs and videos relating to their relationship, in the case titled T Rangaraj v. Joy Crizildaa.

The Court observed that merely furnishing links, photographs or online material would not be sufficient for it to prima facie conclude that there had been a violation of personality rights, and stated that in the absence of any specific allegation of commercial gain to the defendants, the request for injunction ran contrary to settled principles governing the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The suit was filed by Rangaraj, a director of Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited, a company incorporated in 2010 that operates the Madhampatty Pakashala brand. Rangaraj sought protection of his personality rights and reputation, alleging that Crizildaa had made false and malicious communications through social media posts and interviews.

The legal dispute arose from a series of Instagram posts and interviews published by Crizildaa between July and August 2025. Rangaraj alleged that the content falsely portrayed a marital relationship between them and made disparaging statements that harmed his personal and professional reputation, resulting in irreparable commercial loss and damage to the goodwill of his brand. He sought a permanent gag order and a mandatory injunction directing the removal of specific online content.

Rejecting these pleas, the Court emphasised that there could be no blanket order restricting an individual’s right to express views, even where personality rights were claimed. It reiterated that publicity rights are limited to the right to control the commercial use of human identity and clarified that personality rights are not triggered merely because personal material circulates on social media.

The Court further held that the genuineness of photographs, videos and other material relied upon by the parties could only be determined after evidence was led at trial, and that the plaintiff could not seek to abridge the evidentiary value of such material by securing an injunction at the interlocutory stage.

In strong terms, the Court stated that the plaintiff appeared to be attempting to silence individuals or social media users who were airing views against him, and rejected the claim on that basis. It concluded that Rangaraj had failed to establish a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience and the question of irreparable injury favoured Crizildaa, leading to the dismissal of both interim applications.

The Court’s refusal to grant interim relief was also influenced by admissions made in the pleadings, noting that while Rangaraj acknowledged the existence of a relationship, he simultaneously sought to restrain speech relating to it. Crizildaa, the Court noted, had produced prima facie material including WhatsApp chats and photographs indicating a level of intimacy, reinforcing the view that the veracity of the allegations required a full trial and could not be suppressed at the interim stage.

Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan and Advocate Vijayan Subramanian appeared for Rangaraj, while Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran, along with Advocate R Sudha, represented Crizildaa.