Chandigarh: A Chandigarh district court on Wednesday restrained Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia, Congress MLA from Bholath Sukhpal Singh Khaira and retired Punjab and Haryana high court judge Justice Ranjit Singh from posting or circulating ‘unverified or allegedly defamatory material’ against Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann’s wife, Dr Gurpreet Kaur, on social media or any other medium until further orders.The court passed the interim order on Wednesday while hearing a defamation petition filed by Dr Gurpreet Kaur against the three respondents on Sept 8, 2026. The next hearing is on Sept 30.The case relates to allegations that she had ‘demanded Rs 5 crore to help suppress a rape case’. In her petition, Dr Gurpreet Kaur alleged that the respondents had made serious allegations against her and circulated posts and videos on social media with the intention of damaging her reputation. She said the allegation that she had demanded Rs 5 crore was made on Aug 20.According to the petition, the allegation was also featured in a video posted on the DD News Live X account, which was “viewed by more than 74,000 people and shared around 75 times”. The petitioner alleged that a press conference was held in Chandigarh on Sept 1, during which similar allegations were made, and videos of the event were subsequently uploaded on X, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.While passing the interim order, the court observed that the DD News video contained the allegation of a Rs 5-crore demand, but the basis for the allegation was not fully placed before the court.The court also referred to a Facebook post, dated Sept 2, carrying photographs of the petitioner with a person identified as Simranjit Hundal. It noted that Hundal, in an Instagram video posted on Aug 31, had denied having any connection with the petitioner and stated that he had neither sought money from her nor ever met her.The court observed that, prima facie, the material placed before it raised questions about the basis and veracity of the allegations. It said the petitioner had, at this stage, made out a prima facie case and that the videos and photographs circulated by the respondents did not appear to be supported by substantive evidence.The court also stressed that reputation is an integral part of an individual’s dignity and that a balance has to be maintained between the right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation.However, regarding the petitioner’s request to direct removal of the posts, videos and photographs, the court considered it appropriate to first issue notices to the respondents. It observed that ordering removal without hearing them could amount to granting the substantive relief sought in the main suit.
