The Madras High Court has declined to grant an interim injunction sought by businessman and television personality T. Rangaraj, who wanted the court to restrain social media posts and interviews made by Joy Crizildaa. The court held that the dispute involves serious contested facts and personal allegations that cannot be decided at the interim stage, especially when free speech concerns are involved.
The order was delivered by Justice N. Senthilkumar on January 7, 2026.
Background of the Case
Rangaraj, a director of a well-known hospitality company and a familiar face on television, approached the Commercial Division of the High Court seeking protection of his personality and reputation. He alleged that Crizildaa had uploaded videos, photographs, and interviews on Instagram and other platforms suggesting that the two were married and had a personal relationship. According to him, these posts caused severe damage to his reputation, business goodwill, and family life.
Read also:- Cheating, Forgery Charges Failed; Delhi HC Says IPC Section 409 Conviction May Not Stand
He asked the court for two immediate reliefs:
- an interim injunction restraining Crizildaa and unknown third parties from publishing or circulating allegedly defamatory material; and
- a direction to take down specific Instagram posts and related online content.
Crizildaa strongly opposed the plea. She claimed that the relationship was genuine, that a marriage ceremony took place in December 2023, and that Rangaraj later distanced himself despite her pregnancy and repeated attempts to seek support. She also relied on photographs, chats, medical records, and other documents to support her version.
What the Court Examined
Justice Senthilkumar went through the pleadings, typed sets, and the material produced by both sides. The court noted that Rangaraj himself admitted to having a relationship with Crizildaa, even while disputing the nature and legal status of that relationship.
Read also:- After 8 Years of Delay, Delhi High Court Orders Income Tax Dept to Refund ₹5.37 Crore to Microsoft India
The judge observed that the case was not a simple instance of one-sided defamation. Instead, it involved complex personal allegations, disputed claims of marriage, pregnancy, and responsibility, all of which require detailed evidence and cross-examination.
“The court cannot, at this stage, determine where the truth lies,” the bench observed, noting that many of the issues raised go beyond the limited scope of an interim injunction.
Free Speech and Prior Restraint
A key part of the order focused on the law governing defamation and free speech. The court referred to settled principles that interim injunctions restraining speech should be granted only in exceptional cases, particularly when the allegedly defamatory statements are clearly false and malicious.
Read also:- Corruption Probes Back on Track: Supreme Court Reverses Andhra HC’s FIR Quash Order
Justice Senthilkumar emphasised that courts must be cautious not to impose a prior restraint on speech when the defence of justification or truth is still open.
“Unless it is shown that the defence would certainly fail at trial, the court should not silence a party at the threshold,” the judge noted in substance.
The court also took into account that much of the content had already entered the public domain through interviews and social media discussions, making a blanket gag order inappropriate at this stage.
Observations on Conduct of Parties
The order contains strong remarks on the conduct of both parties. The judge noted that the dispute appeared to stem from a personal relationship between two consenting adults, both of whom were aware of the possible consequences.
Read also:- PF Authorities Can’t Appeal Their Own Process, Says Telangana High Court While Dismissing EPFO Plea
The court observed that neither party could claim complete innocence.
“The parties themselves have taken their private disputes to the public sphere,” the judge remarked, adding that such matters often spiral once aired on social media.
It was also noted that criminal complaints and proceedings were already pending in other forums, and those issues could not be indirectly decided through a civil injunction.
Decision
After weighing all factors, the Madras High Court refused to grant the interim injunction and the takedown directions sought by Rangaraj. The court held that the applicant had failed to make out a clear prima facie case for prior restraint on speech, especially in a dispute loaded with disputed facts and ongoing proceedings elsewhere.
The applications for interim relief were accordingly dismissed, leaving the issues to be decided in appropriate proceedings after a full trial.
Case Title: T. Rangaraj v. Joy Crizildaa & Ors.
