The Madras High Court today vacated an interim injunction granted last year shielding superstar Rajinikanth’s family from criticism and publising news relating to money deals done during his film “Kochadaiyaan” after it did not do well in the box office.
Justice R Subbiah, who vacated the interim injunction given on December 8, 2014, in his order observed that “every citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood and education, among their matters”.
“If any publication was made with regard to privacy of the citizen without his consent, then definitely he is entitled to injunction.”
“But, in this case, the publication was made only in respect of commercial transaction that had taken place. That being so, this court cannot grant an injunction as sought for”, the judge said.
The interim injunction was granted against several media organisations restraining them from publishing anything regarding a complaint made by two financiers Ad Bureau and Madhubala Nahar for the amount of loan given by them to the producers of the film.
Justice Subbiah, who vacated the interim injunction, observed that “I do not find anything wrong in publication of news item in newspapers. Press reports cannot be treated as defamatory statement.”
The matter relates to the loan amount obtained by Mediaone, which produced “Kochadaiyaan”, for which Latha Rajinikanth, wife of the superstar, signed as a guarantor.
When there was a default in payment by Mediaone, the media started publishing that the producers approached the Court for an injunction stating that there is no connection to Latha Rajinikanth in the matter as the financiers have not paid the full loan amount of Rs 30 crores for which guarantee is given by her only Rs 10 crores.
When a complaint was made to the police for non-payment by the financiers, media started publishing news involving Rajinikanth’s family in the matter, for which the Mediaone approached the Court.
The judge on the issue of whether a police complaint could be reported by media can be treated as defamatory in his order said “such issues should be approached on case to case basis.”
