A Chandigarh court Wednesday restrained retired judge Ranjit Singh, Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader Bikram Singh Majithia, and Congress MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira from publishing, circulating, or making any “unverified defamatory content” over an alleged bribe demand by Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann’s wife to secure the release of an accused in a rape case.The order was passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dr Prikshit of Chandigarh District Court based on a suit filed by Gurpreet Kaur, wife of CM Mann, on Tuesday, after the retired Punjab and Haryana High Court judge, in a TV programme, and others recently made comments linked to a Rs 5 crore bribe demand by Kaur.DD News anchor Bhawna Nair was also one of the defendants in the case.Kaur alleged that SAD’s Majithia had raised the bribe issue at a press conference on September 1, while Congress’ Khaira had posted commentary, graphics and videos on social media. She claimed that the posts and videos alleged that she had mediated through one Simranjeet Hundal.The court held that reputation is an integral part of the dignity of each individual and there is a need to balance freedom of speech and freedom of expression vis-à-vis the right to reputation.Also read | After police raids at Akali leader Bikram Singh Majithia, party says ‘political vendetta’The court, however, declined to order immediate removal or deletion of the posts, videos and photographs cited by Kaur, saying that notice would first have to be issued to the defendants.Gurpreet Kaur had stated that defamatory and unverified statements had been circulated on social media and other platforms, allegedly linking her to a demand for Rs 5 crore.Story continues below this ad“In the present case, if the freedom of speech and expression of the defendants is not curtailed 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,” read the order.According to Kaur’s counsel, it has been alleged that Ranjit Singh featured in a DD News Live broadcast and social media posts. It was pointed out that the broadcast had been viewed by over 74,000 people and shared around 75 times.The court examined the material placed before it, including a DD News video, a Facebook post by Khaira and a video of Majithia’s press conference.Also read | Fake or real? AI twist to AAP-Congress-BJP’s Punjab poll battleOn the DD News clip, the court observed, “Therefore, the specific substance on the basis of which the alleged news was circulated has not been prima facie shown, but from the same it is prima facie clear that the imputation of demanding a bribe of Rs 5 crore had been made by the defendant No.1.”Story continues below this adRegarding Khaira’s Facebook post, the court said it was “prima facie imputing the image of the plaintiff in the eyes of public.”On the material relating to Majithia, it observed that “the allegation of demanding a bribe” as made by “defendant No.3 is also prima facie shown.”Court considers Simranjeet Hundal’s Instagram videoThe court also considered an Instagram video of Hundal dated August 31, in which he allegedly denied having any connection with the CM’s wife and said Kaur had neither sought money from him nor met him. The court consequently held that “the very basis of the posts, videos, conferences as well as the news have been prima facie shown to be untrue.”Applying the principles governing interim injunctions in defamation cases, the court said, “This Court is of the view that the Plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case in her favour.”Story continues below this adIt further observed that the material posted by the defendants did not appear to be substantiated by cogent proof and that they had posted “entirely unverified material”.However, the court said ordering removal of the existing material at this stage could amount to granting the main relief without hearing the defendants. It also noted that the operators of Facebook, Instagram and X had not been impleaded as parties, and therefore specific directions for forced removal could not be issued.