The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that imputation in respect of political leaders crossing over from one party to another could not be termed as defamatory.
Quashing a defamation case filed by AIADMK’s Babu Murugavel against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L Murugan, the Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed the appeal against a Madras High Court order that had refused to quash the defamation case against the Union Minister.
The High Court had quashed the defamation complaint filed by Murugavel against Tamil Nadu Speaker M Appavu, over his alleged statements in respect of MLAs crossing over from AIADMK to DMK. The complaint was quashed by the High Court on the grounds that Murugavel, who was not an ‘aggrieved person’, filed the complaint in his personal capacity and not in a representative capacity.
Appearing for Murugavel, Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu contended before the Apex Court today that since Murugavel was the Joint Secretary of the legal wing of DMK, the alleged statement affected the reputation of the party.
Asserting the maintainability of the complaint, the Counsel said it was not required to be filed by a person personally defamed (as in the cases of firms/companies).
Noting that the question as to whether the complainant was an ‘aggrieved person’ or not has to be determined on a case-to-case basis, the Apex Court questioned as to how the alleged statements were defamatory.
The Bench asked that in course of a political battle or discourse, if somebody said that these many people from one party would shift to other, would this be considered defamatory?
It could not be a natural thing in a democratic setup. In India, people changed colors. It was not an unlikely situation that a particular member of a political party or a leader of a political party would say that 40 people from party A would cross over to party B. That by itself could not be defamatory, noted the Apex Court.
It said the anti-defection law was implemented precisely to deal with such matters. The law indicated that the Indian democracy and legislature recognised such a phenomenon in the Indian political system, it added.
Initially, Senior Advocate Nagamuthu requested that the matter be remitted back to the High Court, however, it later sought withdrawal of the petition.
As per the case, Appavu, while participating in a book release function in 2023, had said that following the demise of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, the AIADMK was struggling with an in-flight and around 40 MLAs of the party were willing to shift their loyalty and join DMK.
Claiming that the speech defamed the party and its MLAs, Murugavel filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
Appavu sought quashing of the complaint, contending that Murugavel had no locus to maintain the complaint since the alleged imputation was not against him, nor was he authorised by the party.
The petition by Appavu pointed out that there was a statutory embargo under Section 199 on taking cognisance of the offence under Section 499 IPC except upon a complaint by an ‘aggrieved person’. Since Murugavel was not aggrieved in the present matter, the complaint was not maintainable, it added.
Earlier in September, the Apex Court had stayed the trial court proceedings in the matter.
The matter pertained to alleged remarks made by Murugan at a press meet wherein he alleged that Murasoli’s operations were running on land meant for Dalits in Tamil Nadu.
Before the High Court, Murugan had argued that since the alleged defamatory statement was not made against the trust, no case was made out.
The High Court had noted that the Minister’s statements may be comprehended as questioning the right and title of the property in question.
It had added that it could not go into the merits of the case at the current stage and declined to quash the trial court proceedings.
The Minister then moved the Supreme Court.
The post appeared first on .
Quashing a defamation case filed by AIADMK’s Babu Murugavel against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L Murugan, the Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed the appeal against a Madras High Court order that had refused to quash the defamation case against the Union Minister.
The High Court had quashed the defamation complaint filed by Murugavel against Tamil Nadu Speaker M Appavu, over his alleged statements in respect of MLAs crossing over from AIADMK to DMK. The complaint was quashed by the High Court on the grounds that Murugavel, who was not an ‘aggrieved person’, filed the complaint in his personal capacity and not in a representative capacity.
Appearing for Murugavel, Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu contended before the Apex Court today that since Murugavel was the Joint Secretary of the legal wing of DMK, the alleged statement affected the reputation of the party.
Asserting the maintainability of the complaint, the Counsel said it was not required to be filed by a person personally defamed (as in the cases of firms/companies).
Noting that the question as to whether the complainant was an ‘aggrieved person’ or not has to be determined on a case-to-case basis, the Apex Court questioned as to how the alleged statements were defamatory.
The Bench asked that in course of a political battle or discourse, if somebody said that these many people from one party would shift to other, would this be considered defamatory?
It could not be a natural thing in a democratic setup. In India, people changed colors. It was not an unlikely situation that a particular member of a political party or a leader of a political party would say that 40 people from party A would cross over to party B. That by itself could not be defamatory, noted the Apex Court.
It said the anti-defection law was implemented precisely to deal with such matters. The law indicated that the Indian democracy and legislature recognised such a phenomenon in the Indian political system, it added.
Initially, Senior Advocate Nagamuthu requested that the matter be remitted back to the High Court, however, it later sought withdrawal of the petition.
As per the case, Appavu, while participating in a book release function in 2023, had said that following the demise of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, the AIADMK was struggling with an in-flight and around 40 MLAs of the party were willing to shift their loyalty and join DMK.
Claiming that the speech defamed the party and its MLAs, Murugavel filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
Appavu sought quashing of the complaint, contending that Murugavel had no locus to maintain the complaint since the alleged imputation was not against him, nor was he authorised by the party.
The petition by Appavu pointed out that there was a statutory embargo under Section 199 on taking cognisance of the offence under Section 499 IPC except upon a complaint by an ‘aggrieved person’. Since Murugavel was not aggrieved in the present matter, the complaint was not maintainable, it added.
Earlier in September, the Apex Court had stayed the trial court proceedings in the matter.
The matter pertained to alleged remarks made by Murugan at a press meet wherein he alleged that Murasoli’s operations were running on land meant for Dalits in Tamil Nadu.
Before the High Court, Murugan had argued that since the alleged defamatory statement was not made against the trust, no case was made out.
The High Court had noted that the Minister’s statements may be comprehended as questioning the right and title of the property in question.
It had added that it could not go into the merits of the case at the current stage and declined to quash the trial court proceedings.
The Minister then moved the Supreme Court.
The post appeared first on .