Madras High Court Quashes Defamation Complaint Against Tamil Nadu Speaker M Appavu By AIADMK's Babu Murugavel

Justice G Jayachandran noted that the complaint had been filed by Murugavel in his personal capacity and not in a representative capacity. The court added that Murugavel had failed to prove that he was aggrieved by the alleged speeches made by Appavu. The court observed that though Murugavel claimed to have filed the complaint on behalf od the AIADMK party, he had failed to provide any authorisation by the party allowing him to represent the party.

“Thus, it is clear that 'some person aggrieved' but must be the person aggrieved in any manner. In the instant case, the alleged imputation of Mr.Appavu directed against 40 MLAs of AIADMK party during the year 2017, will not cover the complainant even remotely. If he claims that he carries the sword for his newly embraced party, he must have expressed authorisation to represent his party. Whereas, the complaint is in his personal capacity and not in the representative capacity,” the court said.

It was alleged that Appavu, while participating in a book release function in 2023, had said that following the demise of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J jayalalithaa, the party was struggling with an in-flight and around 40 MLAs of the party were willing to shift their loyalty and join DMK. Alleging that the speech defamed the party and its MLAs, Murugavel had filed the complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. The complaint was taken on file and a summons was issued to Appavu.

Appavu sought to quash the complaint by contenting that Murugavel had no locus to maintain the complaint since the alleged imputation was not against him, nor was he authorised by the party. Thus, Appavu pointed out that there was a statutory embargo under Section 199 to take cognisance of the offence under Section 499 IPC except upon a complaint by Aggrieved person. In the present case, since Murugavel was not aggrieved, the complaint was not maintainable.

Appavu also argued that the alleged statements were not slanderous under Section 499. He submitted that Murugavel had neither heard the speech nor examined any person who heard the speech and since the speech was made without any imputation against any individual or organisation, it would not amount to defamation. He also questioned filing the complaint under the provisions of IPC when it was already repealed on the date of filing.

Murugavel, however, argued that he was the Joint Secretary of the State Legal Wing of AIADMK and member of the Party Legal Advisory Committee. He thus argued that he was competent to maintain the complaint. Relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in John Thomas v. Dr K. Jagadeesan, it was argued that the word “some person aggrieved” need not necessarily be the defamed person himself and the test was whether the complainant had reason to feel hurt on account of the publication.

The court however opined that Murugavel did not have locus to maintain the complaint. The court noted that after the speech was made, an instant reaction was made by the Organising Secretary of the party D Jayakumar which showed that the alleged speech was not taken as offensive or having defamatory imputation to demean the party or its members.

The court also noted that in the alleged speech, Appavu talked about the situation following the death of then Tamil Nadu CM in 2017 during which time Murugavel was not even a member of the AIADMK party. Thus, observing that Murugavel was not an aggrieved person, the court quashed the defamation complaint for want of locus standi.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel for M/s P.Wilson Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for M/s Nathan & Asso

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

Case Title: Mr.Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M.Appavu v RM Babu Murugavel

Case No: Crl. O.P.No.25334 of 2024