Madras High Court Dismisses Defamation Complaint Against President & Secretary Of All India Yadav Maha Sabha

The petitioner contended that the respondents had communicated his suspension through an advertisement in a Tamil Daily which is read by general public and the friends of the petitioner. This publication brought disrepute to the petitioner in the eyes of general public and his friends and caused defamation and resulted in him filing a complaint under Section 500 of IPC. According to the petitioner, he was suspended from the Sabha as he had raised objection against the mismanagement of funds in the Sabha.

He further contended that the order of the trial court was not justifiable either in law or on the facts of the case. The trial court had dismissed the case stating that there was no ground to presume that the accused had committed the offence. He argued that the trial court ought to have taken cognizance and issued a summons. What must be checked was whether a prima facie case has been made out and not whether it would end in conviction, he added.

The petitioner also contended that the publication would not come within the scope of ninth exception to Section 499 of IPC as held by the Trial Court. For this, he relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in M..N.Meera vs. A.C.Mathew and another (2002) wherein the court had held that the burden was on the accused to prove that the statement in question comes within the ninth exception and was made for the public good.

The respondents on the other hand stated that the order of removal was duly sent to him through registered post. Further, the Sabha consists of members in various walks of life and sending the communication to each and every such member would take some time. Therefore, to immediately inform the members about the functioning of the Sabha and the disciplinary action taken, a public notice was issued. The public notice does not cause any imputation to the petitioner. The petitioner has also not highlighted any specific incidents which may have lowered his reputation and has merely made a general allegation.

The Court agreed with this contention of the respondent. It observed that nowhere in his sworn statement, the petitioner had stated that the imputation had directly or indirectly in the estimation of others lowered the moral or the intellectual character of the petitioner. Further no ingredient was made out for commission of the offence.

Case Title: L Nandagopal Yadav v Mr Udai Pratap Singh and another

Case No: Crl RC No 834 of 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs C Celastina for Mr B Manivannan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Ashwin Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel