Divya Sathyaraj’s ₹1‑crore defamation suit against Bayilvan Ranganathan: damages, 12% interest and interim injunction

On 24 September 2026, Divya Sathyaraj, deputy secretary of the DMK IT wing, filed a defamation suit in the Madras High Court seeking ₹1 crore in damages from actor Bayilvan Ranganathan and the proprietor of the YouTube channel Puthiya Sinthanai (source).

Background of the defamation claim

The suit stems from remarks allegedly made by Ranganathan after Divya Sathyaraj expressed her views on marriage during a YouTube interview. She said couples should stay together because of love, not merely because of marriage, and criticised basing unions on religion or horoscopes. According to the plaintiff’s counsel, the statements made by Ranganathan were false and would cause irreparable harm to her reputation and goodwill (source).

Claims for damages and interest

The plaintiff seeks ₹1 crore as compensation and also requests interest at the rate of 12 % per annum on the awarded amount, calculated from the date of filing until the sum is realised (source). This interest claim is part of the relief sought in the suit.

Interim injunction and court observations

Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi heard the matter on 24 September 2026 and granted an interim injunction restraining Bayilvan Ranganathan, Google LLC, Facebook India Online Services Private Limited, and X Corp from disseminating the alleged objectionable statements on YouTube or other social‑media platforms (source). The judge noted that a prima facie case had been made and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim relief to prevent further harm to Divya Sathyaraj’s reputation while the case proceeds.

The interim order does not constitute a final judgment on the merits; the allegations remain unproven and the suit is still pending.

What the suit means for the parties

• Divya Sathyaraj – seeks monetary compensation, interest, and a permanent injunction to stop future defamatory remarks.
• Bayilvan Ranganathan & Puthiya Sinthanai – named as defendants; restrained from circulating the disputed content pending trial.
• Google, Facebook, X – directed to block the alleged defamatory material on their platforms while the litigation continues.

The case highlights how individuals can approach the courts for protection against alleged online defamation, and it underscores the role of interim injunctions in limiting the spread of contested statements during litigation.