IMPORTANT POINT
Defamation – Merely under pretext of freedom of expression one cannot make interview intruding privacy of others.

JUDGMENT

N. Sathish Kumar, J.—This suit has been filed for damages of Rs.1,00,01,000/- and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from posting any messages that are defamatory or in the nature of threat against the plaintiff and further for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to issue a public apology to the plaintiff in any national newspaper.

2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is as follows:

It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a charitable trust engaged in rendering yeoman service for the poor and needy belonging to all sections of the society. It runs various educational and other charitable institutions which provide education and relief to destitute women and the needy. The plaintiff has got a very good reputation in the society. When the matter stood thus, the defendant with a malafide intention telecasted a video in Youtube during the first week of July 2020 under the banner of Karuppar Desam, wherein, the defendant has made completely false, baseless and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff with regard to the alleged murder of two persons inside the police station. It is further stated and alleged in the video, as if, the plaintiff is supported by RSS and he may aim to eliminate the Christianity religion and therefore, the murder has took place and it is further alleged that the plaintiff had deliberately conspired and murdered Mr.Jayaraj and Mr.Bennix, because they belong to Christianity. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the statement and allegations made in the video, is, in fact, is nothing but incitement against the entire Christian community. The plaintiff was portrayed in a bad light in the eye of public. The statement has come up as if the plaintiff has conspired and murdered Mr.Jayaraj and Mr.Bennix, that too in the police custody. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming damages.

3. Defendants remained ex parte, despite service of summons. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked.

P.W.1 – Mr.Rabu Manohar

4. Heard the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff and perused the records.

5. P.W.1, in his evidence, has clearly spoken about the nature of the allegations pressed against the plaintiff by the defendant in the social media platform namely Youtube. To substantiate, Compact Disc along with 65B Certificate is also filed before this Court. The nature of the statement targeted against the plaintiff, published and telecasted in social media is not even denied by the defendant. The very conduct of the defendant remaining absent indicate that the allegations as against the defendant has not been traversed nor denied in the pleadings. Ex.P6 is filed to substantiate the allegations made against the plaintiff and were circulated in social media, particularly, when custodial murders of two persons happened and there was a public agitation about the particular incident. When the public were already agitating in respect of custodial death of two persons in police custody, circulating such false allegations without any semblance of truth and portraying the plaintiff in a bad light in the eye of public is nothing but clear case of defamation with a malafide intention. Further, portraying t