Madras High Court Refuses To Restrain Celebrity Stylist Joy Crizilda From Making Social Media Posts Against Chef Madhampatty Rangaraj

Justice N Sentilkumar noted that there could not be a blanket order restricting a person from exercising their right to express their views. The court noted that if Rangaraj wanted to restrain posts against him, he had to establish that there was commercial exploitation of his personality rights.

“It is to be noted that the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the 1st defendant would make it clear that the fundamental right to speech is the right conferred on every single citizen and if the personality rights of the plaintiff is violated by circulation of content concerning his personal life in the social media, the plaintiff has to approach the court and establish the commercial exploitation of the personality rights using the said content by the respective persons,” the court said.

Rangaraj had moved the court seeking to restrain celebrity stylist Joy Crizilda from making any comments against him, disparaging his personality rights, which directly or indirectly defame his character, personal life, professional standing, or reputation in the industry.

The catering company, owned by Rangaraj, had also filed a separate petition to restrain Crizilda from making statements linking the company with the personal dispute between the parties. The court, however, refused to grant an interim injunction to the catering company.

He submitted that he had connected with the celebrity stylist as part of his work and had become acquainted. He added that his trust was misused when Crizilda started giving interviews, alleging that the duo were married and that she was pregnant.

Rangaraj also argued that the act of Crizildaa had caused several damages to his personality rights and the venomous disparagement has defamed not only him but his entire family.

Crizildaa, on the other hand, argued that Rangaraj had deceived her by saying that he was separated from his wife. She also submitted that Rangaraj had forced her to have two abortions, and when Crizildaa refused to have a third abortion, he started physically abusing her. She also argued that Rangaraj had moved the present plea only to arm twist the legal battle and escape from the complaint given by her before the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Woman.

The court noted that as per the materials available, there was a physical relationship between Rangaraj and Crizildaa. The court also observed that Crizildaa started making social media posts only after Rangaraj started showing an indifferent attitude. The court added that Rangaraj alone could not clim that his image had been tarnished by Crizildaa, as Crizildaa's reputation was also damaged because of the relationship between the two.

The court noted that Crizildaa had produced intimate photographs, police complaint against Rangaraj, and the findings of the Tamil Nadu Women's Commission, which were all materials against Rangaraj. The court added that Rangaraj could not abridge the evidentiary value of the materials claiming it to be fake.

With respect to the John Doe order sought by Rangaraj, the court noted that Rangaraj had only produced links to Youtube channels and other social media platforms. The court observed that merely furnishing links would not be sufficient for the court to conclude that there was violation of personality rights.

“Merely furnishing the links and photographs will not be sufficient for the court to prima facie come to the conclusion that there is a violation of personality rights of the applicant/plaintiff and in the absence of any specific allegation made with regard to commercial gain to the defendants, the claim made by the applicant/plaintiff seeking an injunction is against the settled principles on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a),” the court said.

Thus noting that Rangaraj was only making an attempt to shut the voice of individuals or social media who were airing their view against him, the court rejected the interim relief.

Counsel for Applicant: Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel for Mr. Vijayan Subramanian

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. S. Prabhakaran, Senior Counsel for Ms. R. Sudha

Case Title: T Rangaraj v. Ms Joy Crizildaa

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 19

Case No: O.A. No.948 of 2025 & A. No.4798 of 2025 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.250 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment