Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice P. Dhanabal has directed that India Research Watch must not publish statements or articles about the functioning of Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences on public platforms without first emailing the institute the queries or a gist of the material and waiting 72 hours for a response. If a reply is received, it may publish the article only with the response; if none is received, it may publish. The Court said that where statements draw on public or court records, any comment must be confined to material in the public domain. It declined to order takedown of existing publications or an interim public apology.

The proceedings arose from a civil suit instituted by a deemed-to-be university seeking protection against allegedly defamatory publications circulated through social media platforms and online articles. The applicant contended that multiple posts published by the respondents questioned its research output, academic integrity, publication metrics, and institutional rankings, thereby causing reputational harm. Interim reliefs were sought to restrain further publications, to direct removal of existing content, and to compel issuance of a public apology pending trial.

Also Read: 'Harsh To Send Him Behind Bars At This Stage': Supreme Court Reduces 80 Year Old Convict’s Sentence To Period Already Undergone

The respondents opposed the applications, asserting that the impugned publications were based on publicly available data, journal analyses, and academic studies concerning retractions, citations, and research practices. They maintained that the publications constituted fair comment in public interest and denied any intent to defame. It was further contended that similar criticism had been extended to other institutions and that the applicant had not disproved the underlying data relied upon. The respondents resisted the grant of interim mandatory reliefs on the ground that the dispute raised serious triable issues requiring evidence.

The applications were filed invoking provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure governing interim injunctions and inherent powers of the Court, with the core dispute centring on the balance between protection of institutional reputation and freedom of academic criticism.

The Court recorded that the applicant had approached the Court alleging that the respondents had made defamatory publications, while the respondents contended that their statements were based on data and constituted fair comment. The Court observed that “according to the respondents, they have not made any defamatory publications and based on the statistics, the respondents have made criticisms about the retractions” and that the issue raised related to matters of public concern.

While dealing with the prayers for mandatory injunction and interim apology, the Court stated that “those interim prayers cannot be granted since the main prayer itself sought for mandatory injunction to remove the defamatory articles and also for formal public apology” and further noted that “it is a matter of trial and need elaborate evidences.” The Court also recorded that the respondents had already filed their written statement and that such reliefs could be considered only after trial.

With respect to the prayer seeking restraint on future publications, the Court noted that “this Court perused the publications, where some contents found prima facie defamatory.” The Court referred to expressions such as “education scam,” “suspicious,” and “highest grave errors” appearing in the impugned materials and observed that the correctness of the competing claims regarding retraction percentages would have to be adjudicated during trial.

The Court further recorded that “considering the reputation of the college and it is also not disputed that the applicant University was No.1 for the past 4 years,” interim protection against further defamatory publications was warranted. At the same time, the Court reiterated that “the defence of the respondents / defendants is that the publications are truthful and based on the data available in public domain and the said facts have to be tested through trial.”

In balancing freedom of speech with protection of reputation, the Court relied on earlier precedents and observed that interim directions must ensure fairness and restraint. It noted that “to grant an interim injunction in a defamatory case, the Courts must assess whether the statement is prima facie defamatory, false and lacks valid defences such as truth, fair comment or privilege.” Applying this principle, the Court considered it appropriate to regulate future publications without pre-empting the merits of the dispute.

Also Read: Madras High Court Passes John Doe Order Protecting Actor Kamal Haasan's Personality Rights, With Relief Against Illegal Exploitation, But No Bar On Satire

The Court directed that the respondents “shall not publish any statements on 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” and that an opportunity of seventy-two hours must be provided for response. “If any response is received within 72 hours, then the respondents may make a statement and in doing so, they shall also publish the response received by him with prominence.”

“If such statements are based upon public records including the Court records, then the respondents are at liberty to make a fair comment/criticism only on the materials available in the public domain.” The applications seeking removal of existing publications and issuance of an interim public apology were dismissed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: M/s. S. Silambanan, Senior Advocate, for M/s. Kaavya Silambanan Associates

For the Respondents: Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy, for M/s. Ashwini Vaidialingam

Case Title: Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences v. India Research Watch & Others
Case Number: O.A. No.467 of 2025 with A. Nos.2238 and 2239 of 2025 in C.S. No.100 of 2025
Bench: Justice P. Dhanabal