2018 Supreme(Mad) 1386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Subramanian, J.
Ms. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, D/o. Mr.M.Karunanidhi – Applicant
Versus
Thiru.P.Varadarajan Director & Publisher, Kumudam Group Magazines, Kumudam Publications Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
Original Application No.871 of 2014 and Application No.6297 of 2015 in CS No.705 of 2014
Decided On : 16-05-2018
For the Applicant : Mr. P.Wilson, Senior Counsel for M/s. P. Wilson Associates
For the Respondent: Mr. Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel for Mr. R. Parthasarathy and Mr. Rahul Balaji
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19 (1) (a) and 21 - Defamation/loss of reputation - Interim injunction – Seeking compensation for loss - Alleged defamation/loss of reputation caused by defendants by their conduct in publishing various incriminating articles about plaintiff and her family members and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants from in any manner publishing and circulating defamatory article, sketch/photograph/caricature/fudging or any pictoral representation of plaintiff in their magazine “Kumudam Reporter” or in any manner causing damage to reputation of Plaintiff without seeking prior clarification from plaintiff - She had contributed to several Parliamentary Committees during her seven years as a Member of Upper House of Parliament - She is also a prominent leader of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a major political party in State - She is also a vibrant social worker and in view of her tireless effort, she has earned a reputation as prominent political leader - Applicant/Plaintiff would also claim that she is an author recognized in literacy circles for her various works in Tamil Literature - Held, in light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy’s case, relating to Right to Privacy,Court constrained to conclude that though there cannot be a blanket injunction as rightly contended by at same time there cannot be an order in favour of respondents enabling them to publish anything and everything in guise of public interest - Court therefore of opinion that order of injunction granted and modified by order dated - Respondents propose to publish any article relating to private life of applicant, claiming that it is in public interest respondents shall forward their queries/gist or full article to applicant to her email ID (to be furnished) and await for her response - If any response is received within 48 hours, response shall also be published with same prominence of article - If no response is received within 48 hours, respondents will be at liberty to go ahead and published article - OA No.871 of 2014 is allowed, subject to observations made above and vacate injunction petition will stand dismissed.
Original Application No.871 of 2014 has been filed by the plaintiff in CS No.705 of 2014 seeking an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, staff, subordinates or any person claiming through or on behalf of them in any way printing, publishing and circulating the defamatory article, sketch/photograph/caricature/fudging or any pictoral representation of the Applicant/plaintiff in their magazine “Kumudam Reporter” or in any manner causing damage to the reputation of the Applicant/Plaintiff without seeking prior clarification from the applicant/plaintiff.
2. The suit in CS No.705 of 2014 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking damages for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the defendant, therein for the alleged defamation/loss of reputation caused by the defendants by their conduct in publishing various incriminating articles about the plaintiff and her family members and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner publishing and circulating the defamatory article, sketch/photograph/caricature/fudging or any pictoral representation of the plaintiff in their magazine “Kumudam Reporter” or in any manner causing damage to the reputation of the Plaintiff without seeking prior clarification from the plaintiff.
3. According to the applicant/plaintiff, she is the daughter of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and she is a duly elected Member of the Parliament in the Rajya Sabha for two consecutive terms. She had contributed to several Parliamentary Committees during her seven years as a Member of the Upper House of the Parliament. She is also a prominent leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a major political party in the State of Tamil Nadu. She is also a vibrant social worker and in view of her tireless effort, she has earned a reputation as the prominent political leader. Applicant/Plaintiff would also claim that she is an author recognized in the literacy circles for her various works in Tamil Literature. Many of her works have been translated into English and several other languages. In short, the plaintiff would claim that she is a prominent and respected political leader in the State.
4. It is claimed that the respondents, who are associated with the Tamil bi-weekly magazine called “Kumudam Reporter” in various capacities like Director and Publisher, Group Editor, Joint Editor, News Editor, Assistant Editor, etc. have with a malicious intention of damaging her reputation are habitually engaging themselves in publication of highly defamatory and baseless News articles against the applicant as well as the other leaders belonging to the political party, to which the applicant is also attached. The applicant/plaintiff would further complain that in the issue of the “Kumudam Reporter” magazine dated 31.07.2014, the defendants had printed and published a malicious and mischievous article with a sub title. The said article was published under the style of a conversation between a fictitious character called Swami Vambaanandha and his disciple. Contending that the contents of the article which reads as if it is a fiction, are concocted, fanciful, mischievous, derogatory and defamatory apart from being a bundle of lies, the applicant/plaintiff would claim that the publication of the article is only to project the plaintiff and the political party to which she is attached, viz., the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, in bad light in the eyes of the public and to impute certain motives to the applicant/plaintiff, which according to her are baseless and false. It is claimed by the applicant/plaintiff that the article has been published only with a malicious intention to defame the plaintiff.
5. The applicant/plaintiff would further contend that in the second part of the article the respondents have claimed that the applicant is actively planting news items in various Media, against her own brother Thiru.M.K.Stalin, who is working President of the Dravid Munnet