The Madras High Court has refused to order the removal of social media posts about a personal relationship, ruling that a celebrity’s personality rights cannot be invoked to muzzle speech unless there is clear evidence of commercial exploitation.
Dismissing interim pleas by celebrity chef and entrepreneur T. Rangaraj, the Court declined to restrain costume designer Joy Crizildaa and others from sharing posts, interviews, photographs, or videos referring to their relationship. The Court held that, at the preliminary stage, a sweeping gag order would collide with constitutional guarantees of free expression.
The Court made it clear that merely placing links or images before the judge does not establish a violation of personality rights. In the absence of specific allegations showing that the material was being used for commercial gain, the request for an injunction could not stand. Personality and publicity rights, the Court stressed, are not automatic shields against public discussion; they are narrowly tied to the commercial use of an individual’s identity.
Rangaraj had approached the Court claiming that a series of Instagram posts and interviews published between July and August 2025 falsely projected a marital relationship and harmed his personal standing and business reputation linked to his hospitality brand. He argued that the content caused irreparable commercial damage and sought both a permanent gag order and the immediate takedown of specific posts.
The Court was unconvinced. It underlined that there can be no blanket restriction on an individual’s right to express views, even when a public figure invokes personality rights. The right to publicity, the Court reiterated, is essentially the right to control commercial use of one’s identity—not a general right to erase personal narratives from public platforms.
Crucially, the Court held that disputes over the authenticity and truthfulness of photos, videos, chats, and interviews cannot be short-circuited through interim orders. Such questions demand evidence and must be tested at trial. An injunction, the Court observed, cannot be used to dilute or pre-empt that evidentiary process.
In pointed observations, the Court noted that the attempt appeared aimed at silencing voices on social media that were critical or inconvenient, rather than preventing proven commercial misuse. On that basis, it concluded that Rangaraj had failed to make out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience and the question of irreparable harm, the Court held, tilted in favour of Crizildaa.
The decision was also shaped by the pleadings themselves. While Rangaraj acknowledged the existence of a relationship, he simultaneously sought to suppress the other party’s account of it. Crizildaa, for her part, placed material on record—including messages and photographs—suggesting intimacy, reinforcing the Court’s view that the controversy could not be resolved without a full trial.
With no immediate case for restraint made out, the High Court dismissed both interim applications, leaving the competing narratives to be examined through evidence rather than silenced at the threshold.
