The determination of whether a publication is defamatory should be made after a full-fledged trial, and the right to privacy and remedy for damages of a public official is not available if the publication relates to the discharge of their official duty.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Judges Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant an order of rejection of the plaint in C.S.No.82 of 2019 filed by the 1st respondent / plaintiff.)

1. This application for rejecting the plaint has been filed by the 1st defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking damages from the defendants for the defamatory video put up in the YouTube and other social medias and for an injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents etc., from releasing, circulating, publishing any video clippings or articles or giving press interviews and / or post any items, messages on social media containing any allegations as found in the videos that had been uploaded in the social media platform. The 1st respondent / plaintiff would set out the following in his pleadings which is extracted in brief hereunder.

2. The events that has compelled the 1st respondent / plaintiff to file the above suit was a video uploaded on YouTube and other social media platforms in which the applicant / 1st defendant is shown as interviewing one Sayan who is an accused in a pending criminal case. The very interview and the choice of words has been made with the singular motive of maligning the 1st respondent herein and casting aspersions on his character. The video clipping related to an incident of criminal trespass, murder and robbery which had occurred in the Kodanadu Estate at Nilgiris (hereinafter referred to as the Kodanadu Estate Case) which was the home of the former Chief Minister of the State, Dr. J. Jayalalitha, to whose party the 1st respondent belongs to.

3. The 1st respondent in his plaint has described in detail his public standing. He would state that he is not only a member of a recognized political party but is today the Chief Minister of the State. He has also described the reputation that he enjoys in the midst of the public on account of the public services and contributions that have been made by him and also on account of his standing in politics which spans a period of over four decades. The plaintiff would also narrate as to how the content of the video is per se defamatory and how people known to him and several others have viewed the said clipping and informed him about the same.

4. The 1st respondent has stated that the timing of the video was such that it was aimed at lowering his image when the Lok Sabha elections were round the corner. In this interview the applicant sought to implicate the 1st respondent in respect of the deaths of two of the accused in the Kodanadu estate case. This was not only defamatory but also far from the truth as the deaths were on account of two separate road accidents. The interview itself has been done with one of the accused in the said crime. The 1st respondent has stated that the video clipping has tarnished his image and more particularly the reputation that he enjoyed in the midst of the public. The 1st respondent has also contended that the allegations made in the video has caused immense mental agony not only to himself but also to his family members. In these circumstances, he has come forward to file the above suit.

5. The interlocutory application was also moved for an ad interim injunction in O.A.No.86 of 2019 in the above suit. This Court by its order dated 23.01.2019 has granted the ad-interim injunction.

6. The 1st defendant on entering appearance in the above suit has come forward with the instant application for rejecting the plaint. The grounds on which that the applicant has sought to reject the plaint are in a nutshell detailed below:

“(a) The plaint does not make out any cause of action;

(b) The plaintiff has no reputation and therefore there is no question of he being defamed;

(c) The non-joinder of the political party is a ground for rejection since one of the statements in the plaint is that the defamatory statement has been made with an intention to mar the party’s chances