Truthful statements regarding public figures are not defamatory if made with justifiable context and evidence is required to substantiate claims of reputational harm.

JUDGMENT

The Suit had been filed seeking a direction against the defendant to pay damages for loss of reputation and mental agony for a sum of Rs.1,00,01,000/- to the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any innuendos in any manner whatsoever and for such further orders.

2.The plaintiff, at the time of filing the suit was the Secretary in-charge of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party (DMK Party) for Sulur Union Division in Coimbatore. He had been an elected representative and held the post of the Union Councillor in Sulur Panchayat. He had also held the post of Union Chairman at Sulur Panchayat and had worked for the welfare of the people. He had been associated with the DMK party for over 25 years and had been leading a public life and was always considered as a person of repute among DMK party members and the general public. He stated that he was a responsible member of the society with impeccable character, good conduct and high standard and dignity. His good reputation was an integral part of his public life.

3.The defendant at the time of filing of the suit was the Minister for Municipal Administration, Rural Development and Implementation of Special Programme of Tamil Nadu and also the Organising Secretary and Secretary of Coimbatore South Rural District of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) political party. The defendant was ordinarily a resident of Chennai and therefore, the suit had been instituted in this Court.

4.It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, while addressing a political public meeting in Pollachi, had made several imputations and defamatory remarks against the plaintiff which the plaintiff claims are baseless and untrue. The plaintiff further stated that they are motivated attacks on the personal life of the plaintiff and his character with a view to cause disrepute to the plaintiff. The defamatory statement which was made by the defendant in his speech at Pollachi on 11.01.2021 is also extracted below:-

“me;j khjphp. ,nj khjphp/// jpKfy me;j ,uapypy; te;J ghypay; bjhy;iy gz;Qqd/// ,njh K/f/!;lhypd; ,Jjhd;/// vd;ndhl nghl;nlht fdpbkhHp fhkpr;rp';fy/// ,Jf;bfd;d gjpY> c';fz;zd;. c';fz;ze;jhd; xl;o epf;FwhU/// eP';f xU bgz;zh ,Ue;J fz;or;rp';fsh `gh;!;L/// mnj nghy///””

5.The plaintiff had also given a English translation and it is as follows:

“Like, Like wise in DMK, while traveling on a train, he has sexually harassed someone... here, This is M.K.Stalin... Kanimozhi, you have showed my picture.... What is the answer? Your brother, your bother is closely standing.... Firstly, as a woman would you condemn this? .... like this...”

6.It is stated by the plaintiff that while making the statement on

11.01.2021, the defendant was holding a picture of the plaintiff standing along with the then Leader of Opposition in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and the President of DMK Party, Thiru M.K.Stalin. It is stated that the defamatory statement had been made without any bonafide reason and was a misrepresentation of facts and false.

7.The plaintiff then narrated the sequence of events which transpired leading to the speech of the defendant.

8.On 11.03.2019, the plaintiff was travelling from Chennai to Coimbatore by train. He had been diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and was under treatment for five years. He had the necessity to use the rest room very frequently. During his travel, when he tried to climb down from the upper berth, by mistake, he slipped and fell on the lower berth where a woman passenger was sleeping. The plaintiff claimed that this fall had caused him to lose consciousness briefly. Before he could explain the situation, the woman passenger made an oral complaint to the TTR and the police constables were summoned. Thereafter, realizing what had happened, the woman passenger informed the railway authorities and asked them not to pursue action against the plaintiff.

9.But however, according to the plaintiff, owing to constant pressure in