Chennai: The Madras High Court today dismissed controversial ‘godman’ Nithyananda’s application to restrain certain people from making any public statements on a case filed before a court in Karnataka involving him.
Nithyananda sought to restrain his former disciples Lenin Karuppan, Aarthi Rao and her father Sethumadhavan from making statements, conducting any panel discussions or interviews, allegations, reports, clippings, visuals either by direct or indirect reference to him and his devotees in the case.
According to Nithyananda, a criminal case was registered against him before the cheif judicial magistrate court of Ramanagara in Karnataka, for which a charge sheet was filed in 2010, and Rao and Karruppan are the prosecution witnesses.
He submitted that Rao with a “malicious intention” started giving fake and defamation and visual touching upon the allegation in the charge sheet.
In his order, Justice K Chandru said, “The person who comes to the court seeking for equitable relief like an injunction must come with clean hands. He can’t make the court as a tool to prevent his adversaries or make them silent, when he can be active by posting in the social media.”
The respondents have stated that they have not given any particular interview and had only responded to questions posted in the website. ”While so the petitioner has posted 107 questions to Rao. There is nothing wrong in Rao replying to questions. The applicant can’t claim any right to privacy because he is in public domain and his right to privacy is very limited,” the judge said.
Nithyananda himself even after filing this suit have used the media both print and visual as well as social networking sites and posted several questions for Rao who answered and he has been liberally giving interviews.
“A person who comes to the court seeking relief also has to behave himself and not violate principle of liberty for which the relief is sought for, from this court,” the judge said.
“The charge sheet has been field in 2010 and since then the issue has been discussed threadbare in variosu media to the length and breadth of the country. There is nothing further to be discussed,” he said.
The respondents only stated that they have only responded to questions to defend themselves when such questions were asked and not with a view to defame the applicant, the judge said, dismissing Nithyananda’s application.