CRP/1346/2026 of Ms. Venkata Aswini Reddy Koyya @ Ashu Reddy, Vs Mr. Yenumula Satyanarayana Murthy, on 29 April 2026

13378 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:'1346 OF 2026 Petitioner under Article 227 ot lhe Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order daled 28.04.2026 Passed in l.A.No, 576 of 2O26 in OS No. 176 ot 2326 on the file of the Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Between Ms. Venkata Aswini Reddy Koyya @ Ashu Reddy, D/o V. Krishna Koyya, Aged about 33 years, Occupatron. Actress, Television Host and Content Creator, R/o 8-65 Main Road Aganampudi, R./o Visakhapatnam, presently residing at Hyderabad. ...Petitioners AND 1 . Mr- Yenumula Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o Mr. Yenumula Dharmarao, Aged about 60 years, Occupation. Not Known to the Plaintiff, R:/o Flat No. A-1703, Aparna One, Shaikpet, Hyderabad -500104, Telangana. 2- M/s. NTV Telugu. a Telugu news television channel and digital news platform, having its office at 564-A-19/lll, Road No. 92, MLA Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -500096, Telangana, represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

3. M/s. Mahaa News, a Telugu news television, channel and digital news platform, having its office at Plot No. 202, Road No. 76, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -500096. Telangana, represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

4. M/s. lndira Television Limited, (operating the Telugu news television channel Sakshi W), having its registered office at 6-3-24911, Sakshi Towers. Road No. 1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad -500034, Telangana, represented by its Authorised Representative, Email. companysecretary@sakshi.com.

5. M/s. ABN Andhra Jyothy Pvt. Ltd., (operating the Telugu news television channel ABN Telugu and the Telugu daily newspaper Andhra Jyothy and its digital edition andhrajyothy.com), having its office at Road No. 86, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -500096, Telangana, represented by its Chief Editor / Director.

6. Mis. HMW Telugu, a Telugu news television channel and digital news platform, having its office at Plot No. 1042, Road No. 52, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -500033, Telangana, represented by its Editor-in-Chief i Director-

7. M/s. Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd., (operating the Telugu news television channel TVg Telugu and the Telugu entertainment news brand and digital channel TV9 Entertainment), having its principat office at Sagar Society, Road No. 2, Banjata Hills, Hyderabad -500034, Telangana, with ryg Entertainment additionally operating from Plot No. 97, Road No.3, SBI Executive Enclave, Green Valley, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad -500034, Telangana, represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

8. M/s. Zee Media Corporation Limited, (operating the Telugu news television channel Zee Telugu News and the Hindi/English news television channel Zee News), having its office at Plot No. 96, Road No.44, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Jubilee Hrlls, Hyderabad -500033, Telangana, represented by its Editor-in- Chief / Director.

9. M/s. CVR News Telugu a Telugu news television channel, having its office at Plot No. 537J, Road No. 82. Co-operative House Building Society, Navanirman Nagar Colony, Jubilee Hills,. Hyderabad -500096. Telangana,

10. M/s. Truth Serum Media Pvt. Ltd , (operating the digitat news ptatform Hyderabad Mail), having its office at Road No. 15, Venkateshwara Colony. Saroornagar, Hyderabad -500035, Telangana, represented by its Editor-in- Chief i Director.

11. M/s. RTV News Network., (operating the YouTube news channels RTV and RTV Nellore), having rts office at Ptot No. 770, Road No. 44, CBI Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -500033, Telangana, Email. Digital@rtvnewsnetwork.com, represented by its Editor / Director. '12. M/s. Tolivelugu, (Operating a YouTube Channet, a youTube news and entertainment Channel), having its office at 6i4, Sai Nagar, Nagole, Hyderabad- 500068. Telangana. Represented by its Editor/ Director

13. M/s. Big W, (operating muttipte YouTube channels including BIG TV Live, BIG TV Andhra Pradesh, Blc TV Locat, BIG TV Crime and BIG TV Nalgonda), having its office at Dwarka Trident, Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -500033 Telangana, represented by its Director.

14. M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (operating the Telugu daily newspaper Eenadu and its digrtal edltion eenadu.net), having its office at pillar No. 21, Flat No. 301, Main Road, Above State Bank of Hyderabad (Opp.), Moosapet, Hyderabad -500018 Telangana, represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

15. M/s. Networkl S Media & tnvestments Limited., (operating the Telugu news television channel News18 Telugu and its digital edition). having its oflice at D. No. 6-3-902/A, 4th Floor, Plot No.9, Centrat plaza, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad -500082, Telangana, phone. +91-40-40349000,

'16.M/s. Namaste Telangana., (operating the Telugu daily newspaper Namaste Telangana and its digitat edition), having its office at g-2-603,1ll, g & 9, Krishnapuram, Road No. 10. Baniara Hills, Hyderabad -500034, Telangana. Phone. +9'1 40 2325 1999, represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

17. M/s. Filmy Focus, (operating the digital entertainment news platform filmyfocus com). the postal address whereof is not known to the plaintiff. Email. Admin@filmyfocus.com,. represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

18. M/s. NewsBytes Tech, (operating the digital news platform NewsBytesTelugu / newsbytesapp.com). having its office at 105 The Octagon, Xjl _OZ CeLrl Street, Singapore, Phone. + 65 242890, Email. contact@newsbytesapp.com,

19. M/s. Vaartha, (operating the Telugu daily newspaper Vaartha and its digital edition). the postal address whereof is not known to the Plaintiff, Phone. 9848112870, Email. epaper@vaartha.com, represented by its Editor-in{hief / Director.

20. M/s. Jagati Publications Limited, (operating the Telugu daily newspaper Sakshi and its digital editions sakshi.com and sakshipost.com), having its registered office at 6-3-24911 , Sakshi Towers, Road No. 1 , Banjara Hills, Hyderabad -500034, Telangana, represented by its Authorised Representative, Email. companysecretary @sakshi- com.

21. M/s. One.in Digitech Media Pvt. Ltd., (operating the digital news platform One lndia Telugu / telugu.oneindia.com), having its office at VRR Legacy, No. 2, 1st Main Cross, 2nd Floor, 1st Block, Koramangala, Jakkasandra Extension, Bengaluru -560034, Karnataka, represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

22. M/s. Tupaki, (operating the Telugu digital news platform tupaki.com), the postal address whereof is not known to the Plaintiff, Email. admin@tupaki.com, represented by its Editor-in-Chief Director.

23. M/s. Prashanthi Media P\,,.t. Ltd., (operating the Telugu daily newspaper Disha Daily and its digital edition dishadaily.com), having its office at Flat No. 101. House No. 6-3-57111. First Floor, Diamond Block, Lumbini Rockdale, Somajiguda, Hyderabad -500082, Telangana, Phone. 040-48546963, Email. feedback@dishadaily.com, represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

24. M/s. Greynium lnformation Technologies Pvt- Ltd., (operating the digital entertainment news platform Filmibeat Telugu / filmibeat.com), having its office at VRR Legacy, No. 2, 1st Main Cross, 4th Floor, 1st Block, Koramangala, Jakkasandra Extension, Bengaluru -560034, Karnataka. Email. inquiries@greynium.com, -represented.by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

25. M/s. Dakshin Digital Media Pvt. Ltd , (operating the digital news platform The South First / thesouthfirst.com), having its office at Flat 501, ManbhumVenkys Apartment, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda. Hyderabad -500082, Telangana,

26. M/s. The Siasat Daily, (operating the daily newspaper The Siasat Daily and its digital edition siasat-com), having its office at Jawahadal Nehru Road, Abids, Hyderabad -500001 , Telangana,' represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

27. M/s. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited, (operating the daily English newspaper Deccan Chronicle and its digital edition deccanchronicle.com). having its corporate office at 36, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad -500003, Telangana, represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

28. M/s. Times lnternet, (operating the daily English newspaper The Times of lndia and its digital edition timesofindia.indiatimes.com), having its office at Ecstasy lT Park, PIot 391 , Udyog Vihar Phase 3, Gurugram -122016, Haryana, represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

29. M/s. The Trmes Group / Times Network, (operating the English news television channel Times Now and its digital news platform), having its office at Sunteck lcon, BKC Junction, BKC-CST Link Road, Santacruz East. Mumbai -400098, Maharashtra, Email. info@timesnow.tv, represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

30. M/s 123Telugu, (operating the digitat entertainment news ptatform 123telugu com), the postal address whereof is not known to the plaintiff, Email. 123telugu@live.com, represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

31. M/s. Gulte, (operating the digitat news and entertainment platform gulte.com), having its office at 11212-8. Road No. 76. Jubilee Hills. Hyderabad -500096, Telangana Email. admin@gulte.com, represented by its Editor-in-Chief / Director.

32. M/ s. Google LLC -lndia Liaison Officer, (intermediary that operates and hosts the video-sharing platform YouTube, on which several of the offending videos and broadcasts of the Defendants No. 2 to 33 are hosted, indexed, recommended and monetised), having its lndia office at Unit No. 26, The Executive Centre, Level 8, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, Connaught place, New Delhi -110001, Emart support-in@google.com, represented by its Resident Grievance Officer for YouTube.

33. M/s. Meta Platforms lnc., (intermediary that operates and hosts the social_ media platforms lnstagram, Facebook and Threads, on which several of the offending videos, posts, stories and reels of the Defendants No. 2 to 33 are hosted, indexed and recommended), having its lndia office at Unit Nos. 2g and 29, The Executive Centre, Level 18. DLF Cyber City, Building No. 5, Tower A, Phase lll, Gurgaon -122002. Haryana, Email, FBcoindiaqtO.com, represented by its Grievance Officer for lndia. ...Respondents l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 RAr'r' Sec..l51 of Crpc prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the peiition, ihe-Hign Court may be_ pleased to granl a Ex party- temporary lnjunction UnOer Seciion 39 ft ) and (2) of CPC by injuncting the Respondent No. 1, his successors, agenis. representatives and anybody acting through or under him, to forthwith take iown, withdraw, cause to be retracted and not to further publish or exhibit any defamatory complaint, statement, allegation, narrative, interview, byte, post or communication uttered. made, suppried or caused to be supplied by him or on his beharf to the Respondent No. 2 to 31 or to any other person or platform whatsoever against the Plaintiff or any other person in connection with FtR No. 78 of 2026 dated z6.oq.zoza of the Central Crime Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad, to lnjunct the Respondent No.2-31 by ordering takedown of already published defamatory complaint, statement, allegation, narrative, interview, byte, post or communication and to lnjunct the Respondent No.32-33 by ordering takedown of already published defamatory complaint, statement, allegation, narrative, interview, byt'e, post or communication not to further publish the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V. Murali Manohar Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER

INTHE TIIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY Civil Revisio n Petition No.1346 of 2026 Date of Order :: 29.04.2026 Between: Ms.Venkata Aswini Reddy Koyya @ Ashu Reddy . . .Petitioner AND Mr. Yenumula Satyanarayana Murthy and 32 others . . . Respondents

ORDER:

The instant Civit Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 28.04.2026 in I.A.No.576 of 2026 in O.S.No.l76 of 2026 passed by the XI Additional ChielJudge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, insofar as the Trial Court declined to grant ex parte ad interim injunction notwithstanding the urgency demonstrated on the face of affrdavit and material on record, (for short,'the impugned order').

2. Heard Mr. V. Murali Mohan, leamed counsel for the petitioner.

Page4oll2

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court directed issuance of summons to the respondents and posted the matter on 06.01 .2026.

4. The petitioner fited the above suir, viz., O.S.No.l76 of 2026 under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule I and 2 of Civil procedure Code, 1908 seeking for mandatory and perpetual injunction by restraining delendant Nos.2 to 3[, their respective agents, employees, servants, representatives and successors from lurther publishing, uploading, telecasting, sharing or in any manner disscminating any video, image, article, headline, caption, etc., on the on-line video sharing platforms, websites, Youl'ube Channels, social media handles, television Channels, newspapers or any other medium whatsoeveq which defames, imputes or denigrates the petitioner herein.

5. Along with the said suit, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.576 of 2026 tnder Section 39(1) and (2) ofCivil procedure Code, l90g praying the Trial Court for a temporary inj unction by restraining respondent No. I , his successot agents, representatives to forthwith take down, withdraw, cause to be retracted and to not further pubtish or exhibit any delamatory complaint, statement, allegation, narrative, interview, byte, post or communication uttered, made, supplied or.caused to be supplied by respondent No. I or on his behalf to respondent Nos.2 to 3l or to any other person or platform whatsoever against the petitioner in connection with F.I.R.No.18 of 2026, dated 20.04.2026; and to injunct respondenr Nos.2 to 3l by ordering take down of atready pubtished defamatory complaint, statement, allegation, narrative, interview, byte, post or communication

On28.04.2026, rhe Triat Courr passed the following order, viz., "Issue summons lo the defendant; for appearance, call on 06.07.2026, I.A.No_576 of 2026 Heard, the leorned cotmsel for petilioner / plaintifi Perused the materi.ll available on record. Howeve4 circumstances srarecl in the petition affidoril qs the reason mentioned this Court deen it just and necessary lo issue urgent notice to the respondents returnable bv 06.05.2026."

7. Perusal of the above order would show that the Trial Court has given a short date for the petitioner / ptaintiff to serve notice on the respondents and adjourned the matter to 06.07.2026 for taking up I'A'No.576 of 2026 which is an apprication filed under Section 39(r) and

(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, l90g seeking for temporary injunction.

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner herein her own living from is an actress in the film industrv and eams Page 6 of I2 assignments in various films, web series, television shows' brand and public relations associations, marketing campaigns and life engagements'

9. Learned counsel lor the petitioner, meanwhile refeming to the contents that are reflected in the above suit starting fiom paragraph No'9 onwards of the suit lvhich are ctippings from various websites' television channels and also videos uploaded in the YouTube and other website' whereby the petitioner had been projected as "Vitlain" and person of low character, submitted that the said content had tamished the image of petitioner and had also adversely affected her personal as well as professiona[ tife; and therefore, contended that till the matter is taken up by the Trial Court, the respondents herein may be restrained lrom further damaging the image of petitioner by not publishing anyhing in news channels, television channels, web platforms, websites' YouTube channels, social media, newspapers, etc', which are otheru'ise defamatory and also harmful so far as petitioner is concerned'

10. In support of his contention, leamed counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of KanimozhiKarunanidhiandothersvs.Thiru.P.Varadarajanand I I I l i i I i othersr, wherein a learned Single Judge held at paragraph Nos.30, 42 and 43 which for ready reference are reproduced as under, viz., "30. The learned Judge hasfurther obscrved as.follows, viz "475. An individual has a right to protect his repulation from being unfairly harmed and such protection of reputalion needs to exisl not only ogainst falsehood but also cerlain lruth-s. lt cannol be said that a more accurale judgment about people can be facilitated by knowing private delails about their lives - people judge us badly, they judge us in haste, rhey judge out o/ context, they judge without hearing the whole story and theyjudge with hypocrisy. Privacy lets people protect lhemsclves /rom these troublesome judgments. "

42. In balancing the mo rights viz. the Right to Privacy and the Right to Freedom of Speech, the element of public interest is olways based as a touch slone. The fact, as to whether the lormer husband of the applicant is or was lhe owner ofon eslate near the localion, where the fire accident happened recenlly may be of some interesl lo lhe public, but definitely cannot be said to be in public interest. Similarly, there arc several other arlicles published by the respondents, which suggest slrained relationship between her and her brother (who also happens to be a prominent politician). .some talk qf her rclationship between her and a Police Ofrcer some allribuling certain motives in her neeting wilh a Union Minister and certain carloons and caricatutes, which reJer to lhe detention of the applicant etc. Of ' MANU/rNZ339Zo18, dated 1G.05.2018 .J

course. lhe veratil), of those slotements madc in lhose articles or the question a\ lo whether they are defomatory tn nalure or not teill have to be decided only a;fte r trial, bul at the same time the respondents. in my consiclered o1)inion, cannol he allowed to go on publishing orticles, u,hich do tol relale lo the public life of the applica'nt. us a menber oJ the parlianent or as a leader of lhe polilical porty or a.s a dattghter of the fornttr Chie.l llinister or as a sisler of thc former Depu4' ChieJ Minister

43. Thcre[or,:. in ny considered opinion, in the lighr of the lav laid dov,n h\, thc Honl hle Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttas,r,anyl s case, relaling to tht Right lo Privacy, I ant constrained lo conclude that though thetx cannot be a blanket injunction as rightly contended hy Mr.Sathish Parusaran, al the same !ime, there cannot be an order in favour oJ thc rcspondents enabling them to publish anylhingi and everything in the guise of public interest. I om therefore, of the opinion thqt the otder ql injuncrion granted oJ 05.01.20ll and modi,fied hy the order datad 25.0,1.2016 is lo be made absolute, subject to the follov,ing tonditions.

(i) Tha rcspondcnts.shall not publish anything regarding the private lifa of thc <tpplicant, viz., her family, her marriage, procreation, molherhood, child-bearing and education, A)ithout the consent of the applicont.

(ii) Il/henevea the respondents prcpose to publish any article relating to the private life of rhe applicant, claiming that it is in public interest, the respondents shall Jbrward their queries/gist or the full article to the applicant to her email ID (to be furnished) and await for her response lf ony respon.se is received wilhin 48 hours, lhe response shctll also be publi:;hcd with the same prominence of the articlc. lf no response is received within lhe 48 hours, the respondenrs v,ill be at liberty to go ahead and published the article. ll. Therefore, it is well settled that the right to privacy is an intrinsic facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 2l olthe Constitution. The right to privacy is not confined to mere secrecy, but includes the right of an individual to preserve dignity, reputation, autonomy and to control dissemination of personal information. The injury caused by unauthorized publication of personal and private material, particularly in the digital space is immediate, pervasive and often incapable of being remedied fully by subsequent damages.

12. This Court is also conscious that freedom ol speech and expression under Article 19(l)(a) is a cherished constitutional value. However, the said right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) including in relation to delamation and other legitimate interests. In matters where the content complained of pertains predominantly to private life and is projected in a manner which is prima facie defamatory and sensational, the balance of convenience would ordinarily tilt in favour of protecting the dignity and privacy of the individual, at least till the competent Court adjudicates the issue on ments- Page l0 of l2

13. ln the present case, the petitioner has placed material to denronstratc that the impugned publications, if perrnitted to continue, would result in irreversible harm to her privacy, reputation and livelihood. Once a nan'ative is repeatedly circulated through multiple platforms, the petitioner may be subjected to continuing public judgment and stigma which cannot be meaningfully undone even if she ultimately succceds in the suit. fhcrefore, an interim restraint is needed until the Trial Courr decides the iniunction application, so thatjustice is protectcd and the case does not become meaningless.

14. Conscious of the lact that the matter is now seized by the Triat Court for hearing on 06.05.2026 in t.A.No.576 of 2026, this Court does not come in the way of Trial Court in taking an independent decision in the said I.A. At the sarne time, taking strength from the judgment in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi (supra), this Court is also of the view that if rcspondents continue to take up the issue of petitioner in the mainstream of television channels, rvebsites, YouTube, etc., the very purpose of filing the above suit and the very purpose of seeking injunction in itself would get lost. Moreover, if the injunction application stands decided on merits, the respondents would be free to take appropriate legal recourse I I i I I

Page ll of 12 thereafter basing on the outcome of the said I.A., which would include the steps that they are presently pursuing. Till then, at least, an element of restraint is definitely required so as to ensure that privacy of petitioner is honored at least till the courts take an independent view on the said application.

15. In the light olthe aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition at this juncture restraining the respondent Nos.2 to 33 from publishing anything that is defamatory in the form of statements, allegations, narratives, interviews and other communications in newspapers, television channels, websites, YouTube channels, social media and other platlorms till LA.No.576 of 2026 io O.S.No. 176 of 2026 is heard and decided by the Trial Court which is otherwise fixed on 06.05.2026. It is necessary to make it clear that the Trial Court is expected to take an independent decision on the said application on its own merits in accordance with law without being in any manner influenced by the observations or the order passed by this Court in the instant Civil Revision Petition.

16. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands t allowed. No costs.

To,

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand c losed. -t SD/. K.V.O. NARSI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE P SAM KOSHY (For His Lordships kind Persual)

1. The Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Crvil Court at Hyderabad.

2. 11 LR Copies

3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndra, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

4. The Secretary, Advocates Association Liberty, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad

5. One CC to Sri. V. Murali Manohar, Advocate IOPUCI

6. Two CD Copies GNK@

, HIGH COURT DATED: 2910412026 Y'-r,' i5E S iA i , iIi] 2fl26 I r)

ORDER

CRP.No.1346 of 2026 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS oK ''' ':l' 't.r .i-