(Prayer: to pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents 1 to 13, their men, agents, staff, subordinates or any person claiming through or on behalf of them from in any way printing, publishing, broadcasting, disseminating or circulating the articles and videos found in the following URLs: https://youtu.be/7NHgO8HaKE?si=crs8XFnglbEtpBMI (Offending Video-1), https://youtu.be/YnOZThyk0QI?si=LAYIjLsmQUc_5dy (Offending Video-2) or its contents or any other defamatory articles, pictures, or videos which causes damage or tends to lower the reputation of the Applicant in their magazine "Junior Vikatan" or its online edition or in their YouTube Channel Vikatan TV' or in any other media or in any other manner pending disposal of the above suit.

To pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the 14th Respondent from in any way making, printing, publishing, broadcasting, disseminating or circulating defamatory statements, interviews, articles in the nature of the interview given by the 14th Respondent in Junior Vikatan edition of the 22.07.2026 Volume 44 Issue:58 or in any other manner which damages or tends to lower the reputation of the Applicant pending disposal of the above suit.

To pass an order of interim direction to the Respondents 1-13 to remove the offending Videos found in the following URLs https://youtu.be/7NHgO8HaKE?si=crs8XFnglbEtpBMI (Offending Video-1), https://youtu.be/YnOZThyk0QI?si=LAYIjLsmQUc_5dy (Offending Video-2 forthwith and in the event of their failure, directing the 15th Respondent to remove the same, pending disposal of the above suit.)

1. The suit in C.S.No.216 of 2021 has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:

                     (i) a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 14 from printing, publishing, broadcasting, disseminating or circulating, in their magazine “Junior Vikatan”, its online edition, YouTube Channel “Vikatan TV” or through any other media, the allegations, articles, pictures, videos or other materials referred to in the plaint, or any other defamatory material which may cause damage to, or tend to lower, the reputation of the plaintiff;

                     ii) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,01,000-/- as damages.

                     (ii) a direction to defendants 1 to 14 to remove the offending videos; and

                     (iii) a direction to the defendants to destroy all unsold copies of the biweekly magazine “Junior Vikatan”, Volume 44 Issue: 57, dated 19.07.2026 and bi-weekly Junior Vikatan edition dated 22.07.2026 Volume 44 Issue: 58 containing the offending publication.

2. The plaintiff states that he is a senior leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and a public servant. According to the plaintiff, a controversy arose in relation to the registration of an extent of 1.35 acres of land situated at Palani Adivaram, Sangathi Road, Ward No.3, Block No.25, T.S.No.2. It is stated that the said property forms part of the property of Arulmigu Dhandapani Swamigal Madam, attached to Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Palani.

3. It is further stated that the Managing Trustee, Thirupugal Swamigal Murugadas Swamigal @ Dhandapani Swamigal Trust, executed a sale deed dated 27.03.2026 in favour of two individuals and that the registration of the said document, purportedly pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.10239 of 2026, was questioned by the DMK. According to the plaintiff, the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the said individuals has subsequently been declared null and void by the Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.1010 of 2026.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that defendants 1 to 13, with a view to sensationalise the issue and increase the viewership, subscription and circulation of their media platforms, published and circulated certain allegations against the plaintiff through their YouTube Channel “Vikatan TV” and their bi-weekly Tamil magazine “Junior Vikatan”, without properly verifying the factual basis of such allegations.

5. According to the plaintiff, in the first offending video, defendants 11 and 12 stated, purportedly on the basis of information gathered by their reporter, that a controversy had arisen alleging that the disputed temple land had been purchased by former DMK Minister Mr. Sakkarapani. It was further stated that, because of the said allegation, Mr. Sakkarapani was facing political difficulty and that this was the reason why DMK leaders were making public statements concerning the issue.

6. It is further alleged that the publication proceeded to suggest that the investigation in respect of the transaction could even reach the former Minister, Mr. Sakkarapani. According to the plaintiff, the repeated reference to the former Minister and the alleged transaction was intended to associate the plaintiff with the disputed transaction, though there was no factual basis for such an association.

7. It is not in dispute that freedom of speech and expression, which includes the freedom of the press and media, is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. However, the said freedom is not absolute. It is subject to the reasonable restrictions permissible under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The right to freedom of speech and expression does not confer an unrestricted right to publish or circulate statements which are defamatory or which unlawfully damage the reputation of an individual.

8. The plaintiff contends that the statements and publications complained of are defamatory in nature and are likely to have a serious impact upon his reputation, particularly having regard to his public and political position. It is his specific case that the publications were made without adequate verification of the facts and were circulated extensively through the defendants’ media platforms.

9. Mr. P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, submitted that the defamatory statements published against the plaintiff were based on information allegedly supplied by the 14th defendant. He submitted that, in the absence of any credible or independently verified material connecting the plaintiff with the disputed transaction, the publication of such statements has caused serious prejudice to the plaintiff and has the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of the public.

10. At this interlocutory stage, this Court is required to consider whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience lies in his favour. The Court is also required to consider whether refusal of interim protection is likely to cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff.

11. Having considered the pleadings, the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel and the nature of the publications complained of, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has, at this stage, made out a prima facie case for grant of limited interim protection. The allegations complained of directly concern the plaintiff’s reputation and, if permitted to remain in circulation during the pendency of the proceedings, may cause continuing prejudice which may not be adequately compensated by damages alone.

12. In the above circumstances, there shall be an interim order as follows:

                     (i) Defendants 1 to 13 are directed to remove the articles and videos presently available at the following URLs namely (a) https://youtu.be/7NHgO8HaKE?si=crs8XFnglbEtpBMI offending Video No.1; and (b) https://youtu.be/YnOZThyk0QI? si=LAYIjLsmQUc_5dy — Offending Video No.2., which have been identified by the plaintiff as the offending publications:

                      (ii) The 14th defendant is restrained, pending further orders of this Court, from making, printing, publishing, broadcasting, disseminating or circulating any defamatory statement, interview or article, including any statement or material in the nature of the interview allegedly given by the 14th defendant and published in the “Junior Vikatan”, Volume 44, Issue No.58, dated 22.07.2026, or in any other manner which is intended to, or has the effect of, lowering the reputation of the plaintiff.

                     (iii). The interim injunction shall remain in force until 28.10.2026, subject to further orders of this Court.

                     (iv). The plaintiff is directed to take immediate notice and private notice to the respondents/defendants, returnable by 28.10.2026.

                     (v) The plaintiff shall also comply with the requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and file the necessary affidavits and documents evidencing such compliance within the time prescribed by law.

13. Post the matter on 28.10.2026.