Madras High Court: The present application was filed by an IPS Officer, seeking an order of interim injunction to restrain YouTuber Savukku Shankar from publishing, broadcasting, uploading, circulating, reposting, or disseminating defamatory allegations, insinuations, or imputations against him in relation to the alleged custodial death. A Single Judge Bench of K. Kumaresh Babu, J., granted an interim injunction for four weeks, holding that prima facie derogatory and defamatory statements affecting the reputation of a high-ranking Police Officer were subject to reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, thereby justifying the injunctive relief.
Background:
The applicant contended that Savukku Shankar had been making reckless statements accusing him of involvement in the alleged custodial death. He argued that these unnecessary and unverified imputations made by Savukku and other unknown person caused great prejudice to him, creating doubts in the minds of people on hearing the statements made. It was further alleged that the statements had an impact on the performance of his official duties, as they were baseless and without any substance, given that everything done by him was in his official capacity and in furtherance of the duties enshrined.
The applicant thereby sought an order of interim injunction restraining Savukku, his agents, followers, assigns, representatives, or any other person acting on their behalf, from publishing, broadcasting, uploading, circulating, reposting, or disseminating in any manner whatsoever whether in print, digital, audio-visual, or electronic form any content containing defamatory allegations, insinuations, or imputations against him in relation to the alleged custodial death.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the applicant was a responsible Police Officer and in the line of duty. The Court further noted that he had been entrusted with investigation of the case which was consequently transferred to the CBI by the State Government.
The Court read the statements made against the applicant and observed that they were prima facie derogatory and defamatory in nature, thereby affecting his reputation as he was holding a High Office. The Court highlighted that Article 19(2) of the Constitution carved out a restriction to the Article 19(1)(a), which would protect the citizen from being defamed.
The Court, therefore granted an order of interim injunction for four weeks restraining Savukkufrom making any content containing defamatory allegations, insinuations, or imputations against the applicant. Further a notice was issued to the respondent, returnable within four weeks and private notice was permitted considering the urgency.
Also Read:
[S. Davidson Devasirvatham v. A. Shankar, D. No. 120899 of 2025, decided on 01-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Aravind Pandian Sr., counsel for Karthikeyan Anbazhagan
Buy Constitution of India HERE
