Madras High Court Issues Media Restraint Order In #Metoo Case Involving Lenna Manimekalai And Susi Ganesan
Judgement Given On : 20/01/2022
In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court, under the stewardship of Justice Quddhose, issued a restraining order on January 20, 2022, that effectively prohibits filmmaker and poet Leena Manimekalai and film producer Susi Ganesan from making any public statements to the media or posting on social media concerning allegations of sexual harassment within the context of the #MeToo movement. The case arose from a lawsuit filed by Susi Ganesan, a distinguished film director, against Leena Manimekalai. Ganesan sought both damages and a permanent injunction against Manimekalai for what he perceived as defamatory statements directed at him. In 2017, Leena Manimekalai had taken to a website to assert that she had been a victim of sexual harassment. Crucially, she did not name anyone at that time.
In 2018, Manimekalai, as part of the burgeoning #MeToo movement, chose to name Susi Ganesan in connection with allegations of harassment, a decision she made after substantial contemplation. Susi Ganesan, a prominent figure in the film industry, contended that these allegations tarnished his reputation. It is noteworthy that Manimekalai had refrained from filing a criminal complaint against Ganesan but continued to make public allegations, seemingly with the aim of damaging his image. In response, Susi Ganesan initiated a criminal defamation complaint against Manimekalai under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. This complaint was duly accepted by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and legal proceedings were underway. During the ongoing trial, Manimekalai took to Twitter, posting a written statement accompanied by a photograph. Ganesan claimed that this act was maliciously intended to harm his future career prospects. In a significant development, Justice Quddhose granted an interim injunction in favor of Susi Ganesan. The court’s rationale hinged on the belief that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff. The court also acknowledged the potential for irreparable harm to Ganesan if, following the trial, it was determined that the statements made by Manimekalai were false. Moreover, the Madras High Court explicitly emphasized that the case was currently sub judice. Consequently, both Susi Ganesan and Leena Manimekalai were unequivocally restrained from making any public statements or engaging in any form of communication via media channels concerning the subject matter of the ongoing legal dispute.