“Scandalous Allegations”: Madras High Court Awards ₹1.1 Crore Damages To Former CM Edappadi Palanisamy For Comments Linking Him To Kodanad Case

In 2017, the Kodanad estate, which was owned by former Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalithaa was broken into. This was followed by the death of a security guard, three deaths due to road accidents, and the suicide of an estate employee who was in charge of the CCTV cameras at the time. The case is still pending before the District-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilgiris. Meanwhile, the brother of the prime accused, Dhanapal made statements linking Palanisamy to the crimes which led to filing of the present defamation petition.

While decreeing the suit in favour of Palanisamy, Justice RMT Teekaa Raman said that the defendant, Dhanapal made the statements with the sole intention of lowering Palanisamy's image with the knowledge that the contents were per se false. The court also noted that the language used by Dhanapal clearly indicated that his intention was to malign Palanisamy and cast aspersions on his character.

“From a plain viewing of the video clipping, it is evidently clear that the intention of the defendant is to bring disrepute to the plaintiff and aimed at lowering the image of the plaintiff in the eye of the viewers. The contents in the video are per se false and motivated by malicious intent. The defendant is seems to be giving a interview to one press / media person. The choice of words clearly exposes the intention of the defendant and his singular move is to malign the plaintiff and cast aspersion on his character and conduct,” the court said.

Palanisamy had contended that Dhanapal made the alleged defamatory statements during the Lok Sabha Elections in 2024 and was aimed to tarnish his image while he was contesting for the party leadership and for Lok Sabha elections. The defendant Dhanapal had not entered appearance or taken any steps to rebut the allegations made.

On going through the contents of the video of Dhanapal's interview, the court was satisfied that Dhanapal had made scandalous allegations. The court also noted that Dhanapal had blackmailed Palanisamy to extract money as he was booked under a financial fraud case and was in dire need of money. Thus, the court was convinced that while making the statements, Dhanapal had a malice against Palanisamy.

“I find that the defendant has indulged in blackmailing the plaintiff to extract money as he was booked under the financial fraud to a huge amount. By changing stand between Ex.P1 and Ex.P3, he stands exposed and the choice of words also indicates that the defendant had malice against the plaintiff to make such allegation,” the court noted.

The court thus held that the comments made by Dhanapal against a person in the State of Affairs and who was holding the posting of Chief Minister of the State would cause wide public debate and would lower the reputation of the public functionary and the same could not be brushed aside.

The court also lamented the current state of affairs, where social media was being widely used to desecration of reputation of public figures. Calling it an unfortunate human tendency, the court noted that the damage caused to Palanisamy was one of the unavoidable pitfalls of access to social media platforms.

“It is sorry state of affairs that in the age of social media desecration of reputation of public figure has become child's play. Anyone can open a social media account and thereafter post the messages on the account. Thousands of likes and dislikes are received, however, in the process, the reputation of the man, who is targeted, become sadly, mud... The damages that the plaintiff have suffered as a result of the tweets/chats of the defendant is apparent; but that is one of the unavoidable pitfalls of access to social media platforms and the way in which they work, by those who abuse their facility, as the defendant has, in the present case to do so,” the court noted.

Though the court remarked that the bell can't be un-rung and no amount of monetary award could compensate the damage to reputation, the court added that the damages of Rs. 1.1 crore sought for was only a nominal amount. The court thus directed a permanent injunction restraining Dhanapal from making defamatory statements against Palanisamy in the future along with damages. The court also gave liberty to Palanisamy to apply to all print and electronic media and other intermediaries to remove all defamatory articles, publications and statements against him.

Counsel for The Plaintiff: Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel For Mr.S.R.Raghunathan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 426

Case Title: Edappadi K Palanisamy v Dhanapal

Case No: C.S.No.185 of 2023