0

Madras High Court directed the trail court to consider the petitioners grounds in a case of defamation and Dispose it in 3 months.

Blog, blog , , ,

TITLE. L. Murugan Vs. Murasoli Trust.

Decided On: September 5, 2023.

Criminal Original Petition No.10277 & Crl.M.P.No.6094 of 2022. 

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.  

Facts:

The petitioner is the former State President of the Bharatiya Janata Party and presently, he is the Minister of State in the Central Government. Certain alleged defamatory statements were made by the petitioner when he attended a press meet on 28.12.2020. The Respondent appealed that the statements were made by the petitioner with an ulterior motive to degrade and tarnish the reputation of the Murasoli Trust in the eyes of the general public. After the said statements were made by the petitioner in the press meet and they were published in the newspapers, a legal notice dated 29.12.2020 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to withdraw the defamatory statements and to tender unconditional apology. The petitioner, in spite of receiving the said legal notice, failed to respond to the same. The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offences under Sections and 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the petitioner appealed this Court.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The petitioner passed a comment in the press conference that the Murasoli Trust is functioning in the panchami land. The Respondents Stated that the petitioner was again and again trying to project as if the Murasoli Trust is functioning in a property without any right or title and thereby the petitioner was intentionally causing loss of reputation to the Murasoli Trust in the mind of the general public. In an offence of defamation, the statements have to be tested only from the point of view of a common prudent man, who comes across the defamatory statements made. Even if the petitioner thinks that there was no imputation and that he had merely put a question, such statements will be understood by others as if the petitioner is repeatedly questioning the right and title of the property, over which, the Murasoli Trust is functioning and he also wants to drive home the point that it is functioning in the panchami land. That is how the respondent has understood the statements made by the petitioner and even in the complaint, the allegations have been made to the effect that many others had understood it in the same manner and started making enquiries with the respondent. The petitioner made statements during a press meet and they were also published in the newspapers the next day. Hence, there is no difficulty in rendering a finding that the second limb of the ingredients under Section 499 of the IPC is also satisfied.The respondent has taken a very specific stand that the complaint was given against the petitioner to address the legal injury of reputation suffered by the respondent. To substantiate the same, necessary allegations have also been made in the complaint touching upon the intention and motive of the petitioner in making such statements. The Court did not inclined to quash the impugned proceedings at this stage.

Conclusion:

The Court directed the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Court for Trail of cases related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai to dispose of C.C.No.47 of 2021 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Petitioner can raise all the grounds before the Trail Court and the same will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. The observations, if any, contained in this order will not have any bearing on the Trial Court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court imposes a fine of Rupees ONE Lakh on Youtuber as Contempt.

Blog , , , ,

CASE TITLE:  V. Senthil Balaji Vs. Shankar

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU.

Date of Decison:         Reserved on 20.03.2023

                                   Delivered on 16.06.2023

CITATION:  A.No.1045 of 2023 in C.S.No.172 of 2022

INTRODUCTION:

The case of V.Senthil Balaji Vs. A.Shankar is a defamation case filed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Minister V Senthil Balaji against YouTuber Savukku Shankar. In August 2022, Senthil Balaji filed a petition in the Madras High Court seeking an injunction against Shankar from making any defamatory statements against him on social media.The court granted the injunction and restrained Shankar from making any such statements.

                                   However, Shankar continued to make derogatory statements against Senthil Balaji on social media. In February 2023, Senthil Balaji filed a contempt petition against Shankar in the Madras High Court. The court found Shankar guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on him.

FACTS:

The case was filed by V. Senthil Balaji, a Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu, against Shankar alias Savukku Shankar, a YouTuber. Shankar had made a number of videos and statements about Balaji on his YouTube channel, alleging that he was corrupt and had engaged in various wrongdoings. In these videos and posts, Shankar made a number of defamatory statements about Senthil Balaji, including allegations that he was corrupt, had links to the underworld, and had been involved in the death of a former colleague. Balaji claimed that these statements were defamatory and that they had damaged his reputation.

ISSUES:

  • The main issue in the case was whether Shankar’s statements were defamatory.
  • If they were defamatory, then Balaji was entitled to an injunction restraining Shankar from making further statements.

LEGAL ANALYSIS: 

Senthil Balaji’s case:  Senthil Balaji filed a petition in the Madras High Court seeking an injunction against Shankar from making any further defamatory statements about him. He argued that Shankar’s statements had damaged his reputation and caused him considerable distress. He also argued that Shankar’s statements were false and malicious.

Counter Case of Shankar:  Shankar defended his actions by arguing that he was entitled to freedom of speech. He argued that he was simply reporting on matters of public interest and that his statements were true. He also argued that Senthil Balaji was a public figure and that he should therefore be more tolerant of criticism.

Decision of the Madras High Court:

The Madras High Court granted Senthil Balaji’s petition and issued an injunction restraining Shankar from making any further defamatory statements about him. The court found that Shankar’s statements were false and malicious and that they had caused Senthil Balaji considerable distress. The court also found that Shankar’s statements were not protected by freedom of speech because they were not made in the public interest. There are a few ways to protect freedom of speech in the face of defamatory statements about public figures. One way is to have strong anti-SLAPP laws in place. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation, and these laws are designed to protect people from being sued for defamation when they speak out about matters of public interest.

Since the conduct of the respondent was very much negligent without any remorse impinging upon the majesty of the Court, The court  direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, within a period of four weeks from today. He shall also file an affidavit of undertaking that in future he shall guard himself against violating any orders passed by any Court, or even make any comments which may impinge the majesty of the Courts. Such affidavit shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today.

CONCLUSION:

The V.Senthil Balaji Vs. A.Shankar case is a landmark case that sets a precedent for the protection of the reputation of public figures from defamatory statements made on social media. The case also highlights the importance of freedom of speech and the need to balance it with the right to privacy and reputation. Since the Respondent act was “Contempt”, is the crime of being disobedient to order passed by court it imposed a fine of Rupees 1 lakh to the Youtuber.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

Click here to view Judgement

0

ANALYSIS OF A DEFAMATION JUDGMENT: SCOPE OF SPECIAL LEAVE AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

Blog , ,

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 19 April 2023. In the case of UTTAM MANULAL KALE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR IN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (PVT.) NO. 30 OF 2018 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. M. MODAK, the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai acquitted Sudhakar Suradkar for an offense punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The original complainant, represented by Advocate Prashant Gurav, seeks to challenge the correctness of the judgment. This blog aims to analyse the judgment and the arguments presented by both parties.

FACTS

The applicant, represented by Advocate Shri. Prashant Gurav, seeks Special Leave to challenge the acquittal of Respondent No. 2, Sudhakar Suradkar, for the offense of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The court’s inquiry at this stage focuses on whether there is a manifest error in the trial court’s findings and if the principles of evidence appreciation were disregarded or neglected. The complainant alleges that during a meeting regarding the malfunctioning of lifts in a building owned by a cooperative housing society, Respondent No. 2 made defamatory allegations against the complainant, accusing corruption in the lift maintenance contract. The trial court acquitted the respondent, citing inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, lack of independent witnesses, and absence of publication of the defamatory statements. The applicant argues that it is not necessary to reproduce the exact words spoken but rather to establish the defamatory nature of the allegations. The applicant relies on relevant judgments supporting this interpretation. The court reviewed the oral and documentary evidence presented, including minutes of the meeting and a transcription of the discussion. After considering the evidence, the court finds that there are sufficient grounds to infer defamatory allegations made by Respondent No. 2. Therefore, the court grants Special Leave to challenge the acquittal and proceed with further inquiry based on the available evidence

SCOPE OF SPECIAL LEAVE

The law regarding the grant of Special Leave is well settled. While the scope of an enquiry for Special Leave differs from that of a final appeal, it is important to assess whether there is a manifest error in the trial court’s findings. The court must determine if there was a total disregard for the principles of evidence appreciation and whether any neglected or omitted evidence could affect the outcome. In this case, the Court will review the trial court’s judgment based on these principles.

DEFAMATION ALLEGATIONS AND EVIDENCE

The complainant alleges that during a special general meeting held on April 15, 2012, Sudhakar Suradkar made defamatory statements about him concerning corruption in the lift maintenance contract. The complainant argues that it is not necessary to mention every word uttered by the accused but rather to establish whether the words imply defamatory allegations. The complainant relies on two judgments, namely Balraj Khanna and others v. Moti Ram (AIR 1971 SUPREME COURT 1389) and Pyarelal Maganlal Jaiswal v. State of Maharashtra and others (1996 CRI. L. J. 989), to support this contention.

In Balraj Khanna, the court held that it would be impractical to insist on verbatim reproduction of lengthy statements, and the objective is to ascertain whether the words or statements are defamatory in nature. The same principle was reiterated in the Pyarelal case, where the acquittal was set aside based on defamatory allegations made against the complainant.

However, the trial court in the present case acquitted the respondent based on several reasons. It noted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses and the minutes of the meeting, stating that the minutes were not written by an independent person as required. Additionally, it highlighted discrepancies between the verbal script and the note-sheet prepared by the magistrate, the absence of publication of the defamatory allegations, lack of an independent witness, and the absence of a resolution authorizing the complaint. The trial court deemed the evidence untrustworthy and not believable.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Upon reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, it is crucial to recognize the limited scope of the current enquiry for Special Leave. At this stage, the Court must determine whether there is a manifest error in the trial court’s findings. While there is oral evidence supporting the complainant’s claim, including the testimonies of witnesses and a transcription of the meeting, there are inconsistencies in the evidence and discrepancies in the minutes and note-sheet.

It is essential to note that the complainant’s burden is to establish that the utterances can be considered defamatory in nature. The court will carefully examine the evidence and determine if the trial court’s acquittal was erroneous or if there was a disregard for the principles of evidence appreciation.

In conclusion, the decision on whether to grant Special Leave or not will depend on whether the Court finds a manifest error in the trial court’s judgment, such as a disregard for the principles of evidence appreciation or neglecting relevant evidence. The final decision will be based on a deeper inquiry into the available evidence when the appeal is heard after admission.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgement