Disposed

Dr. Varun Kumar IPS (40/2024) v. Mr. Seeman

Madras HC19 Dec 2025OA/799/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An IPS officer sought an interim injunction restraining a politician from making or disseminating alleged defamatory statements in press meets and on social media, pending a damages and injunction suit. Instead of granting the injunction, the court disposed of the application by directing prior notice and opportunity to respond before any publication, with liberty for fair comment based on public

What did the court decide?

Application disposed with directions: respondent to give prior email notice of proposed publications, allow 72 hours for applicant's response to be published prominently; fair comment limited to publi

Dr. Varun Kumar IPS (40/2024) Vs Mr. Seeman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶7

Dr. Varun Kumar IPS (40/2024) S/o.Dr.R.Veerasekaran, Residing at No.C/91, 7th Cross, Thillai Nagar West, Trichy, Tamil Nadu

¶8

Applicant(s)

¶9

¶10

Mr. Seeman S/o.Senthamizhan, REsiding at No.529, Sandeep Avenue, Neelangarai, Chennai-600115

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER: This Original Application has been filed Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules with Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to grant an order of interim injunction, restraining the Respondent/Defendant, his servants, agents, followers, assigns, or any other person acting under or through him, from in any manner whatsoever, making, publishing, posting, republishing, reprinting, forwarding, sharing, endorsing, promoting or otherwise disseminating, either orally or in writing and whether directly or indirectly any defamatory, false, slanderous, or scandalous,

¶13

Page 1

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶16

statements or material concerning the Applicant/Plaintiff or his family whether through print, broadcast, electronic, digital or social media or in any other public or private forum, including but not limited to any repetition or republication of statements previously made, pending disposal of the suit.

¶17

For Applicant(s): M/s.Karthikeyan Anbazhagan For Respondent: Mr. S. Shankar

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Original Application has been filed seeking to grant an order of

¶20

interim injunction, restraining the Respondent/Defendant, his servants, agents, followers, assigns, or any other person acting under or through him, from in any manner whatsoever, making, publishing, posting, republishing, reprinting, forwarding, sharing, endorsing, promoting or otherwise disseminating, either orally or in writing and whether directly or indirectly any defamatory, false, slanderous, or scandalous, statements or material concerning the Applicant/Plaintiff or his family whether through print, broadcast, electronic, digital or social media or in any other public or private forum, including but not limited to any repetition or republication of statements previously made, pending disposal of the suit.

¶21

According to the applicant, he is the Plaintiff in the main Suit filed for

¶22

Page 2

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶25

defamation as against the respondent / defendant. The applicant is now working as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy Range. The respondent is a politician, who is presently the Chief Co-Ordinator of the ‘Naam Tamilar Katchi’ and the Suit was filed seeking reliefs of damages, permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction for the false and defamatory statements made by the respondent on various occasions in Press Meets which were telecasted on television channels and were also widely shared and viewed online by the general public, which has caused irreparable damages to the name and reputation of the applicant. During the year 2020-2021, one Sattai Durai Murugan, a Member and Propaganda Secretary of the ‘Naam Tamilar Katchi’ and a YouTuber, published an interview on a YouTube Channel regarding an incident related to FOXCONN company. The said interview led to a serious law and order situation and thereby, an FIR was registered against the said Sattai Durai Murugan and he was detained under the Goondas Act. At that time, the applicant was serving as the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District. Due to the said arrest, the respondent herein being a Chief Co-Ordinator of ‘Naam Tamilar Katchi’ developed intense animosity towards the applicant. Thereafter, on 11.07.2024, the Sattai Durai Murugan was arrested by the Trichy District Cyber Crime Police based on a complaint given by one Arun and registered a case in Cr. No.34 of 2024. The respondent agitated by the arrest of the said Sattai Durai Murugan and also made false and defamatory statements

¶26

Page 3

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶29

against the applicant during the Press Meet held on 11.07.2024. The said statements were made without any factual basis or verification and with a clear intention to tarnish the reputation of the applicant. The said defamatory statements made by the respondent to the Press and Media have been extensively circulated across various television channels in the country as well as on multiple social media platforms, including YouTube. The statements made by the respondents are baseless lack material and cogent evidence.

¶30

2.1. The applicant denied any association, direct or indirect, with the

¶31

DMK party or any political entity. The respondent’s deliberate attempt to portray the applicant as politically motivated is a blatant falsehood with an intention to mislead the public and damage his standing as an honest officer. The respondent has falsely and maliciously alleged that the applicant is a cellphone thief and an audio thief and also accusing the applicant of acting under the instructions of the DMK party in exchange for a promotion to the position of Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Trichy. As a Police officer, the applicant is duty-bound to act in accordance with law and not based on political considerations. The respondent has deliberately undermined the stature and dignity of an officer of the Indian Police Service through his statements. He attempts to demean and trivialize the Indian Police Service and its officers by stating that applicant is ‘after all’, just an IPS Officer. Further, in one Press

¶32

Page 4

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶35

Meet in Video No.4, the respondent has called the applicant as a ‘beggar’. Further the respondent has also made threats and posted hateful messages. The fake accounts appeared to have been deliberately created with an intent to tarnish the reputation of the applicant and spreading hostility towards the applicant and his family. Pursuant to the complaint of the applicant, case in Cr. No.547 of 2024 was registered on the file of the Thillai Nagar Police Station and the same is pending. Subsequently, another case in Cr. No.595 of 2024 was registered on the file of the Thillai Nagar Police Station and the same is also pending. On 30.07.2024, the applicant sent a legal notice to the respondent and the same was replied with false allegations through a reply notice dated 06.08.2024. Again on 22.08.2024, the respondent issued a Legal Notice. The defamatory statements made by the respondent have caused severe and irreparable harm to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant filed the main Suit and now filed this application to grant interim injunction restraining the Respondent/Defendant, his servants, agents, followers, assigns, or any other person acting under or through him, from in any manner whatsoever, making, publishing, posting, republishing, reprinting, forwarding, sharing, endorsing, promoting or otherwise disseminating, either orally or in writing and whether directly or indirectly any defamatory, false, slanderous, or scandalous, statements or material concerning the Applicant/Plaintiff or his family whether through print, broadcast, electronic, digital or social media or in any other

¶36

Page 5

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶39

public or private forum, including but not limited to any repetition or republication of statements previously made, pending disposal of the suit.

¶40

The respondent filed a counter stating that the prayers sought for in the main Suit for damages, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction are not maintainable. There is no cause of action for the Suit and the main Suit itself is liable to be dismissed. The applicant suppressed the facts and has come forward with the Suit. The applicant always used to post in his Instagram handle and mail with exaggerated claims. The applicant never had any modest approach towards the discharge of his official duties. The respondent never made any controversial statements. The respondent is the Chief Co-Ordinator of the ‘Naam Tamilar Katchi’. He is striving to uplift the Tamil people and promote the awareness among the people to safeguard our ancient values and heritage. At times, he has to submit his views by making emotive appeals and addressing forcible arguments so as to convey his deep concern for the people of Tamil Nadu. It is quite natural to face criticism against any policy and ideologies propagated by any political party. The criticism is the basic right in a democracy which reflects the true spirit of democracy. The respondent never made any defamatory statement as against the applicant except finding fault with his selective discharge of police powers against his party cadres. The statements made by the respondent are not voluntary but answers given to Press

¶41

Page 6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶44

and Media when they specifically referred to the deliberate allegations made by the applicant against the respondent and his party. He made criticisms against the political opponents but never maligned their personal life and character. The perception of facts as perceived by the respondent from the conduct of the applicant in the discharge of his official duties.

¶45

3.1. When the applicant worked as a Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, he invoked Goondas Act to detain the respondent party’s propaganda Secretary Sattai Durai Murugan based on political statement made by him. When the applicant was transferred to Trichy again he registered a case in Cr. No.374 of 2024 on 10.07.2024 and attempted to remand Sattai Durai Murugan. The learned Judge refused to remand and again another case in Cr. No.547 of 2024 on the file of Thillai Nagar Police Station has been registered and attempted to arrest the said Sattai Durai Murugan. Therefore, the applicant either on his own or due to political pressure, had been continuously attempted to implicate the cadres of the respondent with a view to demoralize them and to appease the ruling party and the same could be inferred from the Instagram posts and highlights made by the applicant in his account.

¶46

3.2. The respondent is noway responsible for the abusive posts made by

¶47

the persons who were not under his control. The respondent has never made

¶48

Page 7

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶51

any defamatory statements and he just retorted and replied to the statements made against him by the applicant and against the actions made by the applicant. The entire Suit and the applicant are misconceived and are liable to be dismissed.

¶52

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the respondent has made defamatory allegations against the applicant in the Press Meet and the same were circulated in all the social media. There are so many defamatory speeches made by the respondent. Particularly, on 11.07.2024, he has stated that “ You have an officer, SP, Varu. He is from my native, Urappuli. He has been playing too much, continuously. He does not like anyone like Thevar, Nadar, Konar, Devendrar. He has a natural hatred for all of them. A case was filed in another place, the accused was asked to be brought to Chennai to lodge Goondas by this same Varun IPS. Now the one who arrested him and took him to Trichy is this same Varun IPS. Will we forget all this?”. The above said statement made by the respondent are baseless and only to defame the applicant’s name and reputation, he made such defamatory statements and therefore, the applicant filed the main Suit and during the pendency of the Suit, he filed this application restraining the Respondent/Defendant, his servants, agents, followers, assigns, or any other person acting under or through him, from in any manner whatsoever, making,

¶53

Page 8

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶56

publishing, posting, republishing, reprinting, forwarding, sharing, endorsing, promoting or otherwise disseminating, either orally or in writing and whether directly or indirectly any defamatory, false, slanderous, or scandalous, statements or material concerning the Applicant/Plaintiff or his family whether through print, broadcast, electronic, digital or social media or in any other public or private forum, including but not limited to any repetition or republication of statements previously made, pending disposal of the suit. The applicant made prima facie case and balance of convenience is lying in his favour and if the injunction is not granted, great irreparable loss would be caused to the applicant.

¶57

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that he never made any defamatory statements and only to criticize the acts of the applicant, who registered false cases against the party men of the respondent’s ‘Naam Tamilar Katchi’ and nowhere he stated about the name of the appellant and during the Press Meet, he answered the questions raised by the press people. There is no prima facie case and balance of convenience is not lying in favour of the applicant. The respondent will be prejudiced if the interim injunction is granted. There is no intention to defame the applicant and therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed.

¶58

Page 9

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶61

Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.

¶62

The Plaintiff has filed the Suit for the following reliefs:

¶63

A. Directing the defendant to pay Rs.2,00,10,000/- to the Plaintiff as

¶64

damages towards loss of reputation, emotional distress, mental agony, professional harm and violation of the Plaintiff’s dignity and privacy;

¶65

B. for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his associates, agents, followers, employees, representatives or anyone claiming under or through the defendant, either directly or indirectly, from making, publishing, disseminating or circulating any defamatory, false, slanderous, or scandalous statements, imputations or content, whether oral, written, electronic or otherwise concerning the Plaintiff or his family, in any print, broadcast, digital, social media, press conferences, party meetings or other gatherings where such content may reasonably be expected to reach or influence third parties.

¶66

C. for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to issue a written, unequivocal and unconditional apology to the Plaintiff for having made false, unwarranted and defamatory statements thereby causing irreparable damage to the reputation and dignity of the Plaintiff.

¶67

The main Suit is pending for adjudication. The present application has been filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the

¶68

Page 10

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶71

Respondent/Defendant, his servants, agents, followers, assigns, or any other person acting under or through him, from in any manner whatsoever, making, publishing, posting, republishing, reprinting, forwarding, sharing, endorsing, promoting or otherwise disseminating, either orally or in writing and whether directly or indirectly any defamatory, false, slanderous, or scandalous, statements or material concerning the Applicant/Plaintiff or his family whether through print, broadcast, electronic, digital or social media or in any other public or private forum, including but not limited to any repetition or republication of statements previously made, pending disposal of the suit. According to the applicant, there are defamatory allegations made by the respondent as against the applicant and the respondent denied those allegations and the same can be decided through trial. However, on a perusal of records, is is seen that some heated speeches have been made by the respondent during the Press Meets and this Court has to decided as to whether those statements are defamatory or not through trial. As far as the present application is concerned, according to the applicant, the same statements cannot be repeated during the pendency of the main Suit. Since the main Suit itself is pending for adjudication, the respondent need not repeat the said statements during the pendency of the Suit.

¶72

Page 11

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶75

Since the application in O.A. No.799 of 2025 has been filed for grant of ad interim injunction, it is relevant to refer the order made in A. No.1009 of 2023 in C.S. No.189 of 2022, this Court after considering the judgments of the

¶76

Hon'ble Apex Court particularly in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Justice K.S. Pattuswamy’s (Retd.) reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1, R. Rajagopal’s case in R. Rajagopal vs State Of T.N reported in 1994 (6) SCC 632 and the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran ... vs J.Jayalalitha reported in (2006) 2 LW 377, held in Para No.36 as follows:-

¶77

“36. In view of the reasonings & findings I have arrived at, I do not propose to take a different view, than the one taken by the learned Judge in the judgment stated supra. In such a view the order of injunction granted in O.A.No.588 of 2022 in C.S.No.189 of 2022 on 08.09.2022 shall be modified on the following conditions:

¶78

(a)The applicant shall not publish any statements on any social media or public platforms regarding the activities of the respondent without causing a notice on the respondent of the queries or gist of the articles to the email I.D. of the respondent, for a response from the respondent. If any response is received within 72 hours, then the applicant may make a statement and in doing so he shall also publish the response received by him with prominence. If no such response is received within the aforesaid period, he shall proceed to publish the article.

¶79

(b) If such statements are based upon public records including the Court records, then the applicant is at liberty to make a fair comment/criticism only on the materials available in the public domain.”

¶80

Considering the nature of relief sought for in the main Suit and the respondent has also made some statements and the same have been circulated in

¶81

the social media and in view of the above said judgments, without going into

¶82

Page 12

¶83

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶84

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025

¶85

the merits of the allegations levelled in the main case and in the interest of

¶86

justice , it is appropriate to grant some directions to the respondent by passing the following order:

¶87

(a) The respondent shall not make any defamatory statements on any Press meet or publish in any social media or public platforms regarding the activities of the applicant without causing a notice on the applicant of the queries or gist of the articles to the email I.D. of the applicant, for a response from the applicant. If any response is received within 72 hours, then the respondents may make a statement and in doing so, they shall also state the response received by him with prominence. If no such response is received within the aforesaid period, they shall proceed.

¶88

(b) If such statements are based upon public records including the Court records, then the respondent is at liberty to make a fair comment/criticism only on the materials available in the public domain.

¶89

11. In view of the above said directions and observations, the Original Application in O.A. No.799 of 2025 is disposed of .

¶90

19-12-2025

¶91

mjs Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No.

¶92

Page 13

¶93

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶94

OA No. 799 of 2025 in C.S. No.182 of 2025