Legal Setback For CarryMinati As Court Backs Karan Johar In Defamation Plea

Advertisment

A Mumbai civil court has granted interim relief to filmmaker Karan Johar in his defamation suit against YouTuber CarryMinati, restraining the content creator from publishing or circulating any content deemed ‘defamatory, vulgar, or abusive’ against him.

The order came after Johar approached the court over a roast-style video that, according to his petition, crossed the line from satire to a personal attack.

A Legal Pause on Online Commentary

Johar told the court that the video, styled around a spoof format, used objectionable language and insinuations that harmed his reputation. While public figures often face criticism and parody, his legal team argued that the remarks in question went beyond humour and entered defamatory territory.

Advertisment

After hearing preliminary arguments, the court noted that Karan Johar had established a prima facie case. It issued an ad-interim injunction restraining CarryMinati and others named in the suit from creating, uploading, or sharing similar content until further hearings. The court also directed social media platforms to remove specific links identified in the plea.

When Humour Hurts

CarryMinati commands one of the largest digital audiences in India, with roast videos forming a core part of his content. For many viewers, his sharp tone signals satire. For others, it risks turning personal.

Johar’s plea underscores the emotional and professional cost that public figures say they bear when online commentary spirals. Even if a video comes down, the internet rarely forgets. Clips travel, screenshots linger, and reposts multiply.

Advertisment

The case brings into focus a question that courts increasingly face: how should the law respond when entertainment, opinion, and personal attack blur into one?

The Road Ahead

The relief granted to Johar remains temporary. The court will consider the merits of the case at the next hearing.

For now, it at least draws a line. The order confirms that, as a general rule, “free speech protects criticism and parody, but speech which may harm reputation is not protected.” And once again, in our viral media culture, the courtroom is where we're testing how far that limit goes.

Advertisment