A  Chandigarh Court has temporarily restrained Justice (retired) Ranjit  Singh, SAD leader Bikram Singh Majithia  and Congress leader Sukhpal Singh Khaira from publishing, circulating or making any unverified defamatory content pertaining to the alleged demand of bribe, prejudicial in the interest of Gurpreet Kaur, wife of  Punjab Chief Minister on social media platforms or  through any other medium till further orders of the court.Dr Prikshit, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandigarh, has passed an order on a suit filed by Gurpreet Kaur for damages and seeking injunction.The court issued notices of the suit as well as stay application to defendants for September 30.The counsel for the plaintiff has prayed for hearing of the application ex parte and grant of temporary injunction till the next date.The counsel said that plaintiff had a good prima facie in her favour, and the balance of convenience was also in her favour and against the respondent. If the injunction was not granted, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury which shall not be compensated by any means, the counsel said.The Court in the order said that the plaintiff was the wife of the Chief Minister of the State of  Punjab and was also a qualified medical professional. She had contendedthat the defendant No. 2, Justice Ranjit Singh had made “unscrupulous” allegations against her on August 20,  pertaining to the demand of Rs 5 crore to an accused in a rape case and the same had been posted on the social media handle of DD News Live on X, with the intent to tarnish  her image.She had stated that Justice Ranjit Singh was closely related to defendant No. 4 Sukhpal  Khaira, who was a political opponent of her husband.Further, defendant No.1 Bhawna Nair had made false imputations as sensational and breaking news on news channels, which were subsequently published on X through the handle @DDNewsLive, which has been viewed by more than 74,000 persons and had been shared approximately 75 times.In a similar fashion, Bikram Singh Majithia had also started a campaign to tarnish the image of the plaintiff during a press conference organised by him in Chandigarh, which was uploaded on X, Facebook, Instagram and Youtube, she stated.She had also sent legal notice to defendants through her counsel but the defamatory statement had not been withdrawn.The Court, in the  order, said that it was of the view that the plaintiff had been able to make out a  prima facie case in her favour. “All the posts, videos and photographs as posted by the defendants qua the plaintiff at this moment do not appear to be substantiated by any other cogent proof. Hence, this Court prima facie is of the view that defendants without ascertaining the authenticity of the purported posts had chosen to post them on entirely unverified material, because the very person who was alleged to have mediated with the plaintiff had become hostile. Multiple views must have already been garnered on the posts. It is well-settled that reputation is an integral part of the dignity of each individual and there is a need to balance between freedom of speech and freedom of expression vis-a-vis the right to reputation. In the present case, if the freedom of speech and expression of defendants is not curtailed so as to prevent the defamation of the plaintiff, she will suffer irreparable loss due to the fact that she is an eminent public figure, being the wife of the sitting CM and the issuance of notice to the defendants will cause further loss to her. So, the balance of convenience lies in her favour. Moreover, no irreparable loss will occur to defendants if they are restricted from posting on social media platforms, defamatory notes qua the plaintiff pertaining to the allegeddemand of bribe in a rape case without any verification…“Hence, as a sequel of above, the defendants are herebytemporary restrained from publishing, circulating or making any unverified defamatory content pertaining to the alleged demand of bribe, prejudicial in the interest of plaintiff on social media platforms or  through any other medium till the further orders of the court. As far as the other prayers qua the removal, deletion, take down of all the mentioned posts, videos and photographs are concerned, this court deems it fit to first issue notice upon the defendants for further adjudication. Moreover, if this direction has been passed by this court without hearing the defendants at the very threshold, it will amount to granting of main relief as prayed in the main suit, which is not permissible.”