The Madras High Court has stopped the media, with both prints online, posting, hosting, or any information related to the marital dispute between a popular film actor and his wife, because it will have an effective impact not only on them but also on their minor children.
Justice GR Swaminathan ordered that all online portals and websites should take down the defamation content, already published about the matrimonial dispute between the couple, to honor the right to confidentiality of two children.
The judge directed the High Court Registry that it directed to mark a copy of his order of Central Electronics and Information Technology to ensure the quick and effective compliance of the generalized order passed by them across the country.
The orders were passed at the request of senior advocate Damshadri Naidu, who represented the actor, who contacted the court to prevent his prestigious wife and the latter mother from making defamation statements against him on the mainstream and social media.
Bible say
During the hearing of the case, the judge said, a Bible, saying that someone should do with others what he would like to do/he wants to do it/with him. ” Saying negatively, it would mean that one should not do with others who he/he would not want them to do it with him.
The judge said, “The applicant does not want the respondents to be defamed. To a great extent. But the applicant should also operate himself in the same way,” the judge said and Mr. Naidu and Senior Advocate J. Rabindran received an undertaking from Rabindran, which was assisted by SP Arithi, representing the actor’s wife, neither the party will issue a statement against the other.
‘Super prohibition’ against media
After giving the venture, Mr. Naidu urged the court to pass the “Super Prohibition Order”, which generally prevent media from reporting any information about the matrimonial dispute, because there was always a possibility of “induced leaks or sponsored reporting” from the party.
Investigating the need to pass such prohibitory orders, the judge noted that the marital relationship between the actor and his astraged wife was under severe stress, and because he happened as a celebrity, the issue attracted public attention.
The judge wrote, “Negative campaign footprints are to see in the virtual world for all. I am concerned about my children’s impact on psychological health. Article 8 of the European Conference on human rights states that all have the right to respect for their personal and family life,” the judge wrote.
United Nations Conference on Children’s Rights
In addition, Article 16 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) states that any child will not be subject to his privacy, family, home, or correspondence with arbitrary or illegal intervention, nor for illegal attacks on his honor and reputation.
The judge said, “A child has the right to protect law against such intervention or attacks. The conference was confirmed by the Government of India in 1992, and Article 51 of the Constitution has emphasized the need to promote respect for international law and treaty obligations.”
He said: “Section 9 (2) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, also orders that a data will not act as a processing of fideline personal data, which is likely to create harmful effects on a child’s good.
Supreme Court decisions
The judge remembered the Supreme Court that he had held Sukhwant Singh vs Punjab State (2009) that a person’s reputation was a valuable property and an aspect of his authority under Article 21 of the Constitution. Privacy was also declared as a fundamental right out of the same article in the famous KS Putaswamy case (2017).
Also, in the top court Kaushal Kishore vs. State State (2023) had announced that under Articles 19 and 21, a fundamental right can be implemented against individuals other than the state or its means. “Thus, there may be a horizontal application against the fundamental right to reputation and secrecy against private institutions,” he saw.
John do order
While presenting a question to himself, a super prohibition can be issued against media houses, which remain unpublished before the court, the judge asked: “John Do (or Ashok Kumar) orders?
Also implement the principle of Ubi Juice Ibi Remedium (If there is any right, there should be measures), the judge said, once their children were accepted along with the confidentiality of the couple, such rights could not only be disappointed because it would not immediately be possible to list the names of those persons/media houses who had violated the rights or violations in the future.
UK Supreme Court verdict
Justice Swaminathan greatly trusted the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision of the United Kingdom Pjs vs news group newspaper limitedWho dealt with the right to the right to confidentiality of a claimant and the right to freedom of freedom of expression.
“In that judgment, Lady Hale spoke on the interests of the children involved in the case. His ladeship said that the children will definitely be impressed by the publication of personal information about their parents … Editors should demonstrate an extraordinary public interest to override the paramount interests of children generally under Article 16 of UNCRC,” said the judiciary said.
Marital dispute has no public interest
Justice Swaminathan said that he was keen to adopt the same approach in the current case, there was no element of public interest in a matrimonial dispute between the actor and his wife, and said that it was originally a matter of divorce proceedings between them before a family court in Chennai.
“Just because the applicant is a celebrity, negative development in their personal life has attracted general attention. People are eager to know every petty expansion about intimate aspects. We are at the age of social media and the voyorism is growing. To achieve more and more audiences, every sleege information has been detected, distorted and presented.
“There is another sacred principle that we all have forgotten; Deputy judgeWhen a court is seized from the case, the media does not have a parallel test. Social media will also be included in the media. Therefore, prohibitory orders should be given against the world on a large scale to maintain the principle. Deputy judge Also, ”the judge concluded.
Published – May 27, 2025 06:13 pm IST
