A broadcaster who retains the contractual right to edit content is legally liable for defamatory statements contained therein. Failure to exercise editorial care, combined with the selective publication of a regret, constitutes malice, and the victim's testimony alone suffices to prove loss of reputation.

JUDGMENT :

K. Kumaresh Babu, J.

1.The Present appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgement and decree dated 15.04.2015 in O.S.No.6386 of 2011 (C.S.No.562 of 1996) passed by the learned Additional City Civil Judge -XV, Chennai.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is a talented and popular actress who has acted in several successful films across the four South Indian languages. The plaintiff had won several awards and accolades during the course of her career and had also earned a good reputation in society. The 1st defendant owns television channels, namely Sun TV, Sun Music, and Sun Movies, which telecast programmes viewed by people throughout the country as well as abroad. The 2nd defendant is the Editor of the Tamil weekly magazine “Nakkheeran”, published by Nakkheeran Publications. The 3rd defendant, on the other hand, is a proclaimed offender by the Governments of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka and is alleged to have been involved in heinous crimes such as abduction, murder of several persons, sandalwood smuggling, and other offences.According to the plaintiff, in April 1996, one of the most popular interview-based programmes telecasted by the 1st defendant, namely “Nerukku Ner” (“Face to Face”), featured an interview conducted by the 2nd defendant, wherein the 3rd defendant had made defamatory statements against the plaintiff.

3. The aforesaid interview was shown on 17.04.1996, wherein the imputation made by the 3^rd defendant was that the Plaintiff had an illicit relationship with the son of former Prime Minister Mr.P.V.Narashima Rao, which was allegedly videotaped and used by the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Ms.J.Jayalalitha to strike a deal with the Congress Party before the general elections which was to held in April/May 1996. The defamatory statement clearly refers to the Plaintiff and it was so understood by the viewers. It wasaverred that the statement made by the 3^rd defendant was offensive to Plaintiff’s dignity and has lowered her image in the estimation of her friends, family and the general public of society. It was also contended that the act of the1^st and 2^nd defendant deliberately refraining from removing or obliterating the defamatory statement, was purely malicious and reckless attempt to increase the viewership at the expense of the Plaintiff’s dignity and reputation.Further it was contented that when certain expletives used by the 3^rd defendant had been muted but the particular portion linking plaintiff name to the scandal had been deliberately retained despite its untrue nature. Due to the aforesaid defamatory statements made, not only the reputation of the Plaintiff has been lowered but she had also suffered losses and damages not less than the sum of Rs.1 crore but she had restricted her claim to a sum of Rs.10,00,500/-. When the Plaintiff had sent legal notices to the defendants, which were received by the defendants 1 and 2. The said defendants did not issue any reply and never denied the defamatory nature of the Statements, but the 1^st defendant