Defamation Complaint By Party Member Quashed For Lack Of Locus Standi As 'Person Aggrieved' Under S.199 CrPC; No Personal Harm Or Specific Party Authorisation: Madras High Court - 2025-06-14

Madras High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against TN Speaker Appavu , Cites Complainant's Lack of Locus Standi

Chennai: The Madras High Court, in a significant order, quashed a defamation complaint filed against Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker M. Appavu by an AIADMK party functionary. Justice G.Jayachandran ruled that the complainant, R.M.Babu Murugavel , lacked the necessary locus standi as a "person aggrieved" under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to maintain the complaint.

Case Background

The case originated from a speech delivered by Speaker Appavu , a DMK MLA, at a book release function in Chennai on November 21, 2023. R.M.Babu Murugavel , Joint Secretary of the AIADMK 's legal wing, filed a private complaint alleging that Appavu 's remarks were defamatory to the AIADMK party. The speech reportedly alluded to a period after the demise of former Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa, where Appavu claimed that 40 AIADMK MLAs were willing to shift allegiance to the DMK and that a prominent AIADMK politician had contacted him for this purpose.

The Special Court for cases against MPs and MLAs had taken cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to Speaker Appavu , who then approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings.

Key Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel (for Speaker Appavu ):

* Lack of Locus Standi: Argued that the complainant was not personally defamed by the speech, nor was he authorized by the AIADMK party to file the complaint on its behalf, as mandated by Section 199 Cr.P.C. for a "person aggrieved."

* No Defamation: Contended that the speech was neither slanderous nor malicious and was based on publicly available information. The complainant had allegedly not heard the speech directly.

* Procedural Invalidity: Challenged the maintainability of the complaint filed under the old Cr.P.C. (1973) on July 15, 2024, after the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) came into force on July 1, 2024, repealing the old Cr.P.C. for fresh petitions.

Respondent's Counsel (for R.M.Babu Murugavel ):

* Sufficient Locus Standi: Asserted that as Joint Secretary of AIADMK 's legal wing and a member of its Legal Advisory Committee, duly authorized to defend the party, he was competent to file the complaint. It was argued that the speech was per se defamatory and intended to harm the AIADMK 's reputation.

* Procedural Validity: Maintained that the complaint was initially filed via e-portal on January 31, 2024 (before BNSS implementation) and subsequent delays were due to jurisdictional returns and transfers between courts, eventually being taken on file by the Special Court under High Court direction dated June 19, 2024.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Principles

1. Maintainability under Old Cr.P.C. vs. New BNSS: The Court extensively examined the repeal and savings clauses under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) (which replaced the IPC) and the BNSS 2023 (which replaced the Cr.P.C.). Justice Jayachandran noted:

"Thus, in both the statutes viz., BNS and General Clause Act, 1897, it is made explicitly clear that the right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Code (IPC) shall not be affected in view of the repeal."

The Court found that for offences committed prior to July 1, 2024, the procedure under the Cr.P.C., 1973, would apply. Given the history of the complaint's filing attempts, which began before the BNSS came into force, the Court appeared to accept its procedural maintainability under the old Code, stating that a restricted interpretation of "pending" matters would be prejudicial to litigants.

2. Decisive Factor: Lack of Locus Standi: The core of the Court's decision rested on the interpretation of "some person aggrieved" under Section 199 Cr.P.C. The judgment referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India [(2016)7 SCC 221], which held that the "person aggrieved" is to be determined by courts in each case according to the fact situation. The test, as laid down in John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan [AIR 2001 SC 2651], is whether the complainant has reason to feel hurt on account of the publication.

The Court observed that Speaker Appavu 's speech on November 21, 2023, referred to events purportedly occurring around 2017, concerning 40 AIADMK MLAs. Crucially, the Court noted:

"On that day [in 2017, when TTV Dhinakaran went to Tihar jail, an event mentioned in context to the alleged defections], the petitioner R.M.Babu Murugavel was not even a member of AIADMK party."

Furthermore, the Court pointed out the reaction of Mr. D. Jayakumar , then AIADMK Organising Secretary, who had denied the truth of Appavu 's statement but had not treated it as defamatory.

The High Court concluded that the alleged imputation was not directed at the complainant, R.M.Babu Murugavel , even remotely.

"In the instant case, the alleged imputation of Mr. Appavu directed against 40 MLAs of AIADMK party during the year 2017, will not cover the complainant even remotely. If he claims that he carries the sword for his newly embraced party, he must have expressed authorisation to represent his party. Whereas, the complaint is in his personal capacity and not in the representative capacity." (Para 25)

Final Decision and Implications

Allowing the Criminal Original Petition filed by Speaker Appavu , the Madras High Court quashed the defamation complaint pending before the Special Court. The judgment underscores the strict requirement for a complainant in a defamation case to be a "person aggrieved" – meaning they must demonstrate direct personal harm or, if representing an entity like a political party, possess explicit authorization to do so. A general party position, the Court implied, does not automatically confer locus standi to file a defamation suit in a personal capacity for alleged harm to the party's reputation, especially concerning events where the complainant had no direct involvement or was not even associated with the party at the time.