Law Does Not Give Absolute License To Youtubers And Social Media To Spoil Reputation Of Others: Madras High Court Awards Rs 50 Lakhs Damages

Justice N Satish Kumar further observed that no one could conduct interviews intruding on the privacy of others on the pretext of freedom of speech and expression. The court added that if such behaviors were condoned, every blackmailer would end up using social media to blackmail others by spreading false and unnecessary news.

“Merely, under the pretext of freedom of expression, one cannot make interview intruding the privacy of others, the Law does not give such absolute license to the Youtubers and the social media to spoil the reputation of others. Therefore, this Court cannot shut its eyes when such false allegations are circulated targeting innocent persons. Circulating statements nowadays used as a tool to black mail the people,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a suit filed by Seva Bharathi Tamil Nadu through its trustee Rabu Manohar seeking damages to the tune of one crore and permanent injunction against one Surendar @ Naathikan for his YouTube video making defamatory statements allegedly linking the organization to the custodial death of Jayaraj and Bennix.

Seva Bharathi alleged that in July 2020, under the banner of Karuppar Desam, Surendar had made false, baseless, and defamatory allegations concerning the custodial death of Jayaraj and Bennix. In the video, it was alleged that Seva Bharathi was supported by the RSS and aimed to eliminate Christianity. It was even alleged that Seva Bharathi had deliberately conspired and murdered the two persons since they belonged to Christianity.

Seva Bharathi submitted that the statements and allegations made in the video were nothing but incitement against the entire Christian community.

The court observed that the statements were made and circulated when the custodial murders had taken place and there was public agitation. The court thus remarked that when the public was already agitated regarding the custodial death, circulating such false allegations without any semblance of truth and portraying the organization in a bad light was a clear case of defamation with malafide intention.

The court was thus of the opinion that the trust was entitled to damages. Though the court noted that the exact amount of monetary damages was not ascertainable, considering the serious allegations which not only caused damage to the reputation but also had a serious impact on the activity of the trust, the court held that the trust was entitled to a monetary compensation of Rs. 50 Lakh.

The court thus directed the defendant to pay damages of Rs 50 Lakh to the trust within a period of one month failing which an interest of 7.5% would be attracted to the suit amount. The court also granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his agents from posting any defamatory or derogatory statements against the trust.

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr. S. Ravi, Senior Counsel for M/s.Gupta and Ravi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 112

Case Title: Seva Bharathi TamilNadu v Surendar @ Naathikan

Case No: C.S.No.60 of 2021