1. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 28.04.2026 in I.A.No.576 of 2026 in O.S.No.176 of 2026 passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, insofar as the Trial Court declined to grant ex parte ad interim injunction notwithstanding the urgency demonstrated on the face of affidavit and material on record, (for short, ‘the impugned order’).

2. Heard Mr. V. Murali Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court directed issuance of summons to the respondents and posted the matter on 06.07.2026.

4. The petitioner filed the above suit, viz., O.S.No.176 of 2026 under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for mandatory and perpetual injunction by restraining defendant Nos.2 to 31, their respective agents, employees, servants, representatives and successors from further publishing, uploading, telecasting, sharing or in any manner disseminating any video, image, article, headline, caption, etc., on the on-line video sharing platforms, websites, YouTube Channels, social media handles, television Channels, newspapers or any other medium whatsoever, which defames, imputes or denigrates the petitioner herein.

5. Along with the said suit, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.576 of 2026 under Section 39(1) and (2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court for a temporary injunction by restraining respondent No.1, his successor, agents, representatives to forthwith take down, withdraw, cause to be retracted and to not further publish or exhibit any defamatory complaint, statement, allegation, narrative, interview, byte, post or communication uttered, made, supplied or caused to be supplied by respondent No.1 or on his behalf to respondent Nos.2 to 31 or to any other person or platform whatsoever against the petitioner in connection with F.I.R.No.78 of 2026, dated 20.04.2026; and to injunct respondent Nos.2 to 31 by ordering take down of already published defamatory complaint, statement, allegation, narrative, interview, byte, post or communication.

6. On 28.04.2026, the Trial Court passed the following order, viz., “Issue summons to the defendant; for appearance, call on 06.07.2026; I.A.No.576 of 2026 – Heard, the learned counsel for petitioner / plaintiff. Perused the material available on record. However, circumstances stated in the petition affidavit as the reason mentioned this Court deem it just and necessary to issue urgent notice to the respondents returnable by 06.05.2026.”

7. Perusal of the above order would show that the Trial Court has given a short date for the petitioner / plaintiff to serve notice on the respondents and adjourned the matter to 06.07.2026 for taking up I.A.No.576 of 2026 which is an application filed under Section 39(1) and (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking for temporary injunction.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner herein is an actress in the film industry and earns her own living from assignments in various films, web series, television shows, brand and public relations associations, marketing campaigns and life engagements.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, meanwhile referring to the contents that are reflected in the above suit starting from paragraph No.9 onwards of the suit which are clippings from various websites, television channels and also videos uploaded in the YouTube and other website, whereby the petitioner had been projected as “Villain” and person of low character, submitted that the said content had tarnished the image of petitioner and had also adversely affected her personal as well as professional life; and therefore, contended that till the matter is taken up by the Trial Court, the respondents herein may be restrained from further damaging the image of petitioner by not publishing anything in news channels, television channels, web platforms, websites, YouTube channels, social media, newspapers, etc., which are otherwise defamatory and also harmful so far as petitioner is concerned.

10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of Kanimozhi Karunanidhi and others vs. Thiru. P. Varadarajan and others (MANU/TN/2339/2018, dated 16.05.2018), wherein a learned Single Judge held at paragraph Nos.30, 42 and 43 which for ready reference are reproduced as under, viz.,

               “30. The learned Judge has further observed as follows, viz.

               “475. An individual has a right to protect his reputation from being unfairly harmed and such protection of reputation needs to exist not only against falsehood but also certain truths. It cannot be said that a more accurate judgment about people can be facilitated by knowing private details about their lives – people judge us badly, they judge us in haste, they judge out of context, they judge without hearing the whole story and they judge with hypocrisy. Privacy lets people protect themselves from these troublesome judgments.”

               … … …

               42. In balancing the two rights viz. the Right to Privacy and the Right to Freedom of Speech, the element of public interest is always based as a touch stone. The fact, as to whether, the former husband of the applicant is or was the owner of an estate near the location, where the fire accident happened recently may be of some interest to the public, but definitely cannot be said to be in public interest. Similarly, there are several other articles published by the respondents, which suggest strained relationship between her and her brother (who also happens to be a prominent politician), some talk of her relationship between her and a Police Officer, some attributing certain motives in her meeting with a Union Minister and certain cartoons and caricatures, which refer to the detention of the applicant etc. Of course, the veracity of those statements made in those articles or the question as to whether they are defamatory in nature or not will have to be decided only after trial, but at the same time the respondents, in my considered opinion, cannot be allowed to go on publishing articles, which do not relate to the public life of the applicant, as a member of the parliament or as a leader of the political party or as a daughter of the former Chief Minister or as a sister of the former Deputy Chief Minister.

               43. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon◻ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy◻s case, relating to the Right to Privacy, I am constrained to conclude that though there cannot be a blanket injunction as rightly contended by Mr.Sathish Parasaran, at the same time, there cannot be an order in favour of the respondents enabling them to publish anything and everything in the guise of public interest. I am therefore, of the opinion that the order of injunction granted of 05.01.2014 and modified by the order dated 25.04.2016 is to be made absolute, subject to the following conditions.

               (i) The respondents shall not publish anything regarding the private life of the applicant, viz., her family, her marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education, without the consent of the applicant.

               (ii) Whenever, the respondents propose to publish any article relating to the private life of the applicant, claiming that it is in public interest, the respondents shall forward their queries/gist or the full article to the applicant to her email ID (to be furnished) and await for her response. If any response is received within 48 hours, the response shall also be published with the same prominence of the article. If no response is received within the 48 hours, the respondents will be at liberty to go ahead and published the article.

11. Therefore, it is well settled that the right to privacy is an intrinsic facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to privacy is not confined to mere secrecy, but includes the right of an individual to preserve dignity, reputation, autonomy and to control dissemination of personal information. The injury caused by unauthorized publication of personal and private material, particularly in the digital space is immediate, pervasive and often incapable of being remedied fully by subsequent damages.

12. This Court is also conscious that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is a cherished constitutional value. However, the said right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) including in relation to defamation and other legitimate interests. In matters where the content complained of pertains predominantly to private life and is projected in a manner which is prima facie defamatory and sensational, the balance of convenience would ordinarily tilt in favour of protecting the dignity and privacy of the individual, at least till the competent Court adjudicates the issue on merits.

13. In the present case, the petitioner has placed material to demonstrate that the impugned publications, if permitted to continue, would result in irreversible harm to her privacy, reputation and livelihood. Once a narrative is repeatedly circulated through multiple platforms, the petitioner may be subjected to continuing public judgment and stigma which cannot be meaningfully undone even if she ultimately succeeds in the suit. Therefore, an interim restraint is needed until the Trial Court decides the injunction application, so that justice is protected and the case does not become meaningless.

14. Conscious of the fact that the matter is now seized by the Trial Court for hearing on 06.05.2026 in I.A.No.576 of 2026, this Court does not come in the way of Trial Court in taking an independent decision in the said I.A. At the same time, taking strength from the judgment in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi (supra), this Court is also of the view that if respondents continue to take up the issue of petitioner in the mainstream of television channels, websites, YouTube, etc., the very purpose of filing the above suit and the very purpose of seeking injunction in itself would get lost. Moreover, if the injunction application stands decided on merits, the respondents would be free to take appropriate legal recourse thereafter basing on the outcome of the said I.A., which would include the steps that they are presently pursuing. Till then, at least, an element of restraint is definitely required so as to ensure that privacy of petitioner is honored at least till the courts take an independent view on the said application.

15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition at this juncture restraining the respondent Nos.2 to 33 from publishing anything that is defamatory in the form of statements, allegations, narratives, interviews and other communications in newspapers, television channels, websites, YouTube channels, social media and other platforms till I.A.No.576 of 2026 in O.S.No.176 of 2026 is heard and decided by the Trial Court which is otherwise fixed on 06.05.2026. It is necessary to make it clear that the Trial Court is expected to take an independent decision on the said application on its own merits in accordance with law without being in any manner influenced by the observations or the order passed by this Court in the instant Civil Revision Petition.

16. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.