'What Is Defamatory In Saying MLAs Were Ready To Switch Parties?' Supreme Court Rejects AIADMK MLA's Plea Against TN Speaker

While refusing to entertain AIADMK's Babu Murugavel's challenge to quashing of a defamation complaint against Tamil Nadu Speaker M Appavu, the Supreme Court today observed that imputation in respect of political leaders crossing-over from one party to another can't be said to be defamatory.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was dealing with Murugavel's challenge to a Madras High Court order, whereby the defamation complaint against the TN Speaker over his alleged statements in respect of MLAs crossing-over from AIADMK to DMK, was quashed. The High Court quashed the complaint on the ground that Murugavel, who was not an 'aggrieved person', filed the complaint in his personal capacity and not in a representative capacity.

During today's hearing, Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu (for Murugavel) informed the bench of Justices Roy and Bhatti that Murugavel is the Joint Secretary of the legal wing of the party and the alleged statement affected the reputation of the party. He attempted to persuade the bench that the complaint was maintainable, as it was not required to be filed by person personally defamed (as in the cases of firms/companies).

However, the bench was not convinced. While emphasizing that the question as to whether complainant is an 'aggrieved person' has to be determined on a case-to-case basis, it questioned as to how the alleged statements were defamatory.

"In course of a political battle or discourse, somebody said that so many people from that party will shift to this party. We have to understand it in the context of...if you strictly think about defamation, where is that? Is it natural thing in a democratic setup...in India people changing colors? It's not an unlikely situation that a particular member of a political party or leader of a political party to say that 40 people from party A will cross over to party B. That by itself how can it be defamatory? We have an anti-defection Act...it indicates that our Indian democracy and legislature recognizes such a phenomenon in the Indian political system. You are saying as if something strange has happened. We have an anti-defection law precisely to deal with [such things]", remarked Justice Roy.

In response, Nagamuthu pled that the matter may be remitted back to the High Court . However, Justice Roy expressed that if the petitioner wants that, the Supreme Court can record that in its order. Considering what was falling from the bench, the senior counsel, on instructions, ultimately prayed for withdrawal of the petition. Accordingly, the matter was dismissed.

Briefly put, the allegations in the complaint were that Appavu, while participating in a book release function in 2023, said that following the demise of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, AIADMK was struggling with an in-flight and around 40 MLAs of the party were willing to shift their loyalty and join DMK. Claiming that the speech defamed the party and its MLAs, Murugavel filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.

Appavu sought quashing of the complaint, contending that Murugavel had no locus to maintain the complaint since the alleged imputation was not against him, nor was he authorized by the party. Appavu pointed out that there was a statutory embargo under Section 199 on taking cognizance of the offence under Section 499 IPC except upon a complaint by an 'aggrieved person'. In the present case, since Murugavel was not aggrieved, the complaint was not maintainable.

Case Title : R.M. BABU MURUGAVEL Versus MUTHUVELAYDHA PERUMAL APPAVU @ M. APPAVU, SLP(Crl) No. 16265/2024