By Priyanka Sukhija and Sehar Sethi
The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech under Article 14 is a cornerstone of democratic expression, ensuring that individuals may voice opinions without undue restraint. However, this protection is not absolute and the boundary between legitimate expression and disparagement remains delicate. In recent years, courts have increasingly adjudicated in favor of restricting speech where it amounts to disparagement, reflecting a growing judicial trend of balancing free expression against the need to protect reputation and commercial interests.
Recently, the Madras High Court in Nannir Water Source LLP v. Syed Imran & Ors[1], reinforced curbing disparagement by granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, limiting unregulated free speech to protect reputational and commercial interests. An analysis of the court’s recent order has been outlined below:
Submissions of the Plaintiff
- The plaintiff is a registered company specializing in manufacturing machinery and equipment, with a focus on developing, supplying, installing, and servicing advanced water treatment and conditioning systems. Its technologies address challenges such as hard water, high TDS, salinity, scale formation, and overall water quality across domestic, industrial, and agricultural sectors.
- The plaintiff promotes its product as eco‑friendly, electricity‑free, and low‑maintenance. In addition to highlighting these features, it has taken proactive steps to safeguard its intellectual property, securing trademark registration for the mark NANNIR ( No. 5354209, Class 09).
- The plaintiff became aware of a video uploaded on May 25, 2025, by Syed Imran (respondent no.1) on his YouTube (respondent no.3) channel “Buying Fact’s”, which was presented as a review of the plaintiff’s product.
- The plaintiff alleges that the first respondent’s malicious and misleading statements have cast unwarranted doubts over the effectiveness of its product, leading to consumer hesitation in making purchases, an impact reflected in the comments posted on the video.
- The plaintiff cited the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Marico Limited v. Abhijeet Bhansali,[2] which affirmed that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. While emphasizing the importance of safeguarding free expression, the Court underscored that reasonable restrictions are essential to maintain social order in a democracy.
- Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India lays down the specific grounds on which reasonable restrictions may be imposed on the freedom of speech and expression. By enumerating these grounds, the provision ensures that while free speech is protected as a fundamental right, it remains subject to limits necessary for maintaining social harmony and democratic order.
- Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India safeguards the right of individuals to pursue their lawful trade and business. The plaintiff invoked this provision to argue that the false, misleading, and disparaging statements made by the first respondent have directly impeded this fundamental right by obstructing the applicant’s ability to conduct business effectively.
Judgment
The Court held that a prima facie case had been made out, with the balance of convenience and irreparable hardship established. It observed that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if an interim injunction were not granted. Accordingly, the Court directed respondent no.3, YouTube, to take down the disparaging video uploaded on respondent no.1’s channel.
The matter has been scheduled for its next hearing on February 23, 2026.
The above adjudication reiterates the clear judicial stance that free speech cannot be used as a shield for defamation or disparagement. Courts are proactively intervening, especially in the digital space, to protect individuals and businesses from reputational harm. The following recent judgments in the past years, illustrate how courts have restricted freedom of speech in cases involving online disparagement, particularly to safeguard reputation and commercial interests:
| S.No | JUDGMENT | BRIEF FACTS | COURT’S RULING |
| 1. | PhysicsWallah Ltd. vs. Nikhil Kumar Singh & Ors.[3]
Delhi High Court
(CS(COMM) 70 of 2026) |
Facts:
An ex-employee of the Plaintiff, PhysicsWallah Ltd. ran an online campaign alleging the company was a “scam,” posting derogatory messages across social platforms. |
The Court ordered removal of defamatory posts and granted an ad‑interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff citing ‘Right to free expression cannot be
exercised to trample upon rights of others, particularly, right to reputation, which is also a valuable right recognized as integral facet of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is trite that balancing the right to freedom of speech with the right to reputation and dignity is intrinsic to the Constitutional scheme.’[4] |
| 2. | Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Prashant Desai (Complan)[5]
Delhi High Court
CS (COMM) 684/2024 |
Facts:
Social media influencer Prashant Desai posted videos claiming the nutritional drink Complan had high sugar and was unhealthy, naming the trademarked product directly. Zydus alleged the content was false, misleading and disparaging, harming its brand goodwill. |
The Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Zydus, holding the videos contained unsubstantiated, harmful statements amounting to disparagement and trademark infringement citing ‘The defendant cannot be allowed to openly belittle, malign or vilify the plaintiff’s product ‘COMPLAN’ about something which has been recognised/ authorised by the Government of India’ ‘By virtue of the protection granted to all by Article 19 of the CoI, any
man is free to convey/ share/ opine about anybody and/ or anything without being slanderous, defaming, libelling amounting to criticism and/ or character assassination.’[6] The court ordered Desai to take the videos down and restrained him from publishing disparaging content about Complan. |
| 3. | Malabar Gold And Diamonds Limited v. Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors.
Bombay High Court
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.30690 OF 2025 in SUIT (L) NO.30688 OF 2025 |
Facts:
Malabar Gold & Diamonds sought relief after widespread social media posts accused it of being a “Pakistan sympathiser”, linked to influencer content (Alishba Khalid). The posts did not directly relate to a product but concerned the brand’s reputation. |
Bombay High Court issued an ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, directing platforms (Google, Facebook, etc.) to delete hundreds of URLs containing the defamatory content, treating the posts as harmful to the brand’s reputation. |
These decisions underscore that freedom of speech is vital but not absolute, and courts will restrict expression that is prima facie defamatory or disparaging to prevent irreparable harm to reputation and commercial interests.
[1] C.S. (Comm.Div.) No. 302 of 2025
[2] AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 3109
[3] (CS(COMM) 70 of 2026)
[4] Ibid.
[5] CS (COMM) 684/2024
[6] Ibid.