Madras HC restrains temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan from making defamatory remarks against Vedic scholar Dushyanth Sridhar
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted the interim injunction until the disposal of a defamation suit filed by the orator early this year seeking damages to the tune of ₹1 crore from the activist for having already allegedly made several abusive and derogatory remarks against him on social media.
The orator had filed the suit in February along with an application seeking the leave of the court to institute the case in Chennai despite him being a resident of Bengaluru and the defendant being a resident of Srirangam. He claimed many of his followers were in Chennai and therefore, a part of cause of action had arisen here.
Senior counsel Satish Parasaran relied upon a 2011 judgment of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom in Turner versus Grovit and a 2022 judgment of the High Court of Australia in Dow Jones and Co Inc versus Gutnick to contend that his client was entitled to choose a forum of his convenience.
Accepting his submissions, Justice Babu had allowed the application to grant leave on June 23, 2025, and directed the High Court Registry to number the suit. Subsequently, he took up the plea for grant of interim injunction, until the disposal of the suit, and gave four weeks' time for the activist to file a reply.
The judge said, even during the arguments on the application to grant leave to file the suit, the activist had admitted to have made certain statements against the orator on social media but his defence was that those statements were neither defamatory nor derogatory.
'This court, on going through the statements made by the respondent, prima facie finds that such statements are defamatory in nature. Hence, there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for,' the judge ordered.
Advocate Rahul Balaji, representing Mr. Sridhar, said, the activist was in the habit of making objectionable statements against every other person on social media. He produced screenshots of statements made against a senior counsel in order to dissuade him from appearing for the orator.
On being convinced that the statements made against the senior counsel were disparaging, Justice Babu wrote: 'Such statements have been made challenging the learned senior counsel who had appeared for the applicant... They are in the nature of making the learned senior counsel to keep him away from appearing in the cases.'
Therefore, apart from injuncting the activist from making defamatory statements against the orator, the judge also restrained him from making any kind of statements, in the future, against the lawyers appearing for the opponents in his cases.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hans India
21 minutes ago
- Hans India
Calcutta HC to hear 2 cases on harassment of Bengali-speaking migrants in Odisha, Delhi simultaneously on July 16
The Calcutta High Court on Monday said that it would hear two separate cases on alleged harassment of Bengali-speaking migrant workers from West Bengal in two different states, together this week and not separately. One of the two cases is about the harassment of Bengali-speaking migrant workers from West Bengal in Odisha, and the second case is about similar harassment in Delhi. It was alleged that these Bengal-speaking migrant workers were harassed by the Odisha and Delhi governments after branding them as illegal Bangladeshi infiltrators. The Odisha-related matter came up for hearing at the Division Bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra. The Division Bench decided that instead of hearing the Odisha-related matter separately the same would be heard simultaneously and together with the Delhi-related matter on July 16. On Monday, the petitioner in the Odisha-related matter informed the court that most of the workers who were detained in Odisha after being branded as illegal Bangladeshi infiltrators have returned to West Bengal. The petitioner also expressed hope that the complications related to the return of a few other migrant workers from West Bengal who are still in Odisha will be resolved soon. On July 11, the Division Bench of Justice Chakraborty and Justice Mitra directed the Union Home Ministry to submit a report to the court on allegations that some Bengali-speaking migrant workers from West Bengal residing in New Delhi have been recently deported to Bangladesh. The Division Bench also directed the West Bengal Chief Secretary Manoj Pant to contact his counterpart in the Delhi government and also get a report from the state government there on the same matter, which will also have to be submitted to the court. Incidentally, on July 16, the Trinamool Congress will be organising a mega rally in Kolkata to be led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee against the alleged harassment of Bengali-speaking migrant workers in states outside West Bengal, especially in BJP-ruled states. Besides the main rally in Kolkata, the state's ruling party would also organise similar protest rallies in all the districts.


Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
YouTube videos of animal killings result in criminal cases in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh
HYDERABAD: Recent incidents of animal cruelty, some uploaded on YouTube, have led to criminal action in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh following complaints by PETA India and allied organisations. On Wednesday, a preliminary offence report (POR) was registered in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, after videos surfaced showing two Russell's Vipers being bludgeoned to death, and a hare trapped and killed in agricultural fields near P Kotakonda village, Devanakonda mandal. Snakes are protected under Schedule I and hare under Schedule II of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad The POR was registered under multiple provisions of the Act. These are non-bailable offences with punishments ranging from three to seven years imprisonment and a minimum fine of 25,000. The main accused was taken into custody by the forest department, which is continuing its investigation. In another incident on July 7 in Jakkapur village, Narayanraopet mandal of Siddipet district, a video showed a man biting a goat on the neck and tearing it apart with his teeth, assisted by others. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Earn Upto 5k Daily By This Method of Intraday Trading TradeWise Learn More Undo An FIR was filed at Chinnakodur police station after a complaint by Adulapuram Goutham of Stray Animal Foundation of India (SAFI), Hyderabad. The accused was booked under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Earlier on June 28, Adibatla Police in Rachakonda registered an FIR under BNS and PCA Act after five community dogs were allegedly poisoned in Sri Sri Aerocity. While four died, one survived due to intervention of a caregiver. A post-mortem was conducted on one of the deceased dogs. Meanwhile, a central govt-appointed inspection panel on June 26 recommended immediate rehabilitation of over 1,200 animals at Palamur Biosciences in Mahabubnagar, following a PETA-led expose.


The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Submit list of criminal cases against ‘Savukku' Shankar: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court, on Monday (July 14, 2025) directed the Tamil Nadu Home Secretary, Director General of Police (DGP) and Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police to submit by July 29 a list of criminal cases pending against YouTuber 'Savukku' Shankar alias A. Shankar (48) and the number of cases in which investigation had been completed. The direction was issued while ordering notice to the three top officials and directing them to file their counter affidavit to a writ petition filed by Mr. Shankar alleging police interference in the functioning of Savukku Media (One Person Company) Private Limited. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the judge criticised journalists who conduct parallel media trial in criminal cases just for sensationalisation and go to the extent of dictating to the police and even the judges as to how a case should be handled, without waiting to see the outcome of those cases. Asking the YouTuber's counsel to advise his client, the judge said, journalists could not misuse the fundamental right to speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and begin throwing mud on each and every institution in the country right at the preliminary stage of inquiry/investigation. 'We have to take the weapon (of Article 19) for a good cause, not for blackmailing. It is a stark reality that some of the journalists are blackmailing people... You cannot expect police and courts to act as per your dictum.... This is not the way... You are misguiding the people by doing all this,' the judge said. In his affidavit, Mr. Shankar had accused the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police A. Arun of subjecting him and his employees to various 'unlawful actions' since February this year just because he had been exposing police atrocities, misconduct and inaction through his YouTube channel. The petitioner said that he had gone to Prayagraj in Uttar Pradesh by road in February this year, along with his crew members, to cover the Kumbh Mela. Then, a team of 20 personnel from the Telangana police intercepted their car and took them to the Ramayampet police station for inquiry. The entire crew comprising the driver and cameraman was detained for about two hours on February 8 and was allowed to go only on payment of ₹1,000 for not being in possession of Pollution Under Check (PUC) certificate. He alleged that the harassment was meted out to them at the behest of Greater Chennai police. The petitioner said that he had immediately sent an e-mail to the Home Secretary complaining about the Chennai police tracking his movements and subjecting him to harassment. He also stated that in May, the motorcycles belonging to his cameraman and visual editor were seized by the police on petty charges. Hence, he made a second complaint to the Home Secretary on May 23 since the latter was the chairperson of the State Police Complaints Authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Police (Reforms) Act of 2013 and was the appropriate authority to look into complaints of police highhandedness. Further, stating that he had made a similar complaint to the DGP too on June 21; the petitioner sought a direction to the Home Secretary and DGP to take appropriate action on his complaints and forbear the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police from interfering with the functioning of Savukku Media. However, Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran, representing the Home Secretary, contended that the complaints lodged by the writ petitioner would not strictly fall under the purview of the 2013 Act. He also stated that he would make all his submissions in writing by way of a counter affidavit within two weeks.