Madras HC temporarily restrains Savukku Shankar from making defamatory remarks against ADGP Davidson Devasirvatham
Justice P Kumaresh Babu, on Friday, passed interim orders on the civil suit and applications filed by the police officer.
'A reading of the statements made against the applicant (Davidson Devasirvatham) would prima facie conclude that they have been making statements in derogatory and defamatory manner, which would affect his reputation as he is holding high office,' the judge said.
He added that Article 19(2) of the Constitution carves out a restriction to Article 19(1)(a) – freedom of speech and expression – providing protection to the citizen from being defamed.
The interim injunction will be in force for four weeks.
The judge also ordered notice to Savukku Shankar, directing him to file a reply to the petition within four weeks, and accordingly adjourned the case.
Davidson Devasirvatham moved the application praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the YouTuber, his agents, followers or representatives from publishing, broadcasting, uploading or circulating, in any manner whatsoever, in print, digital or audio-visual form, any contents containing allegedly defamatory allegations, insinuations or imputations against him with respect to the custodial death of Ajith Kumar.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Software engineer moves top court against Rajasthan HC's 'erroneous' order on foreign travel
New Delhi, A software engineer, accused of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage, has moved the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Rajasthan High Court which directed his wife to be present in the country if he wished to travel abroad for a job. Software engineer moves top court against Rajasthan HC's 'erroneous' order on foreign travel The petitioner in his plea said the high court, in a clear violation of the "procedural impropriety" and without hearing or impleading his wife, who is currently employed in the US, and ignoring that she is not a part of the criminal case, directed her to remain in India. The petition, filed through advocate Ashwani Dubey, submitted that the said impugned direction passed by the high court was "erroneous" and violative of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The matter is listed for hearing on August 8. The counsel argued that the direction suffered from procedural irregularity and legal perversity, having been passed without affording a hearing to the person affected. "The petitioner is the Indian passport holder and Indian citizen and he is not the citizen of any other country and he will be under the control of Consulate General at USA and there are no chances of his absconding as he is willing to go abroad to earn his livelihood on work visa and therefore, there is no question of his absconding. "He will be going for a specific period and he undertakes a specific oath before this Court that he shall make himself available for trial as and when directed, therefore, there is no question of delay in trial and also there is no question of his absconding," the plea said. The engineer was booked for rape at the Christianganj Police Station of Ajmer. According to the petition, the accused and the woman met on an online matrimonial site and had a close acquaintance for a period of approximately four years. It was alleged that the man entered into an intimate relationship with the complainant, promising her that he would marry her. Under apprehension of arrest, the engineer moved an anticipatory bail application, which was allowed. He then moved an application before the trial court to allow him to go abroad to the USA for employment. The trial court dismissed the application, which was assailed before the high court, which allowed him to go abroad but imposed a condition that his wife must remain in India. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Also Read: US tightens family immigration policy with stricter vetting and interview rules Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California.A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration advocacy groups filed suit last month, accusing President Donald Trump 's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as her order, Frimpong said there was a "mountain of evidence" that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote that the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution."If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion," the judges Department of Homeland Security said being in the country illegally is what makes someone a target of immigration officers, not their skin colour, race or ethnicity."Unelected judges are undermining the will of the American people," department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said Saturday in an emailed statement. "President Trump and Secretary Noem are putting the American people first by removing illegal aliens who pose a threat to our communities."A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the US from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many of whom have lived in the country for the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend on June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, "I was born here in the states, East LA bro!"They want to "send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week."It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution," attorney Jacob Roth also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under the law."Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion," Roth saidThe judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments."No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all," Judge Jennifer Sung those factors alone only form a "broad profile" and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors "cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status."She also asked: "What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?"Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a "victory for the rule of law" and said the city will protect residents from the "racial profiling and other illegal tactics" used by federal agents.
Economic Times
4 hours ago
- Economic Times
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
AP A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month, accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a "mountain of evidence" that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote that the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. "If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion," the judges wrote. The Department of Homeland Security said being in the country illegally is what makes someone a target of immigration officers, not their skin colour, race or ethnicity. "Unelected judges are undermining the will of the American people," department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said Saturday in an emailed statement. "President Trump and Secretary Noem are putting the American people first by removing illegal aliens who pose a threat to our communities." A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. Los Angeles a battleground over immigration policy The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the US from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many of whom have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend on June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, "I was born here in the states, East LA bro!" They want to "send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. "It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution," attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under the law. "Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion," Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. "No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all," Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a "broad profile" and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors "cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status." She also asked: "What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a "victory for the rule of law" and said the city will protect residents from the "racial profiling and other illegal tactics" used by federal agents. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Zomato delivered, but did the other listed unicorns? US tariff hike to hit Indian exports, may push RBI towards rate cuts Will TCS layoffs open the floodgates of mass firing at Indian IT firms? Indian IT firms never reveal the truth hiding behind 'strong' deal wins Is Bajaj Finance facing its HDFC Bank moment? Tata Motors' INR38k crore Iveco buy: Factors that can make investors nervous Stock Radar: Strides Pharma stock hits fresh 52-week high in July; will the rally continue in August? F&O Radar| Deploy Short Strangle in Nifty to gain from Theta decay For investors who can think beyond Trump: 5 large-cap stocks with an upside potential of up to 36%
