Is Allegation Made In Judicial Proceedings Defamatory? Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against AIADMK Leader Palaniswamy

In a relief to All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) leader Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS), the Supreme Court today stayed a Madras High Court order which restored the criminal defamation proceedings initiated against him by expelled AIADMK leader KC Palanisamy (KCP).

The Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order while granting leave to appeal for Palaniswami's petition.   

The genesis of the case lay in a defamation complaint filed by KCP against EPS, averring that EPS had filed an affidavit in arbitration proceedings pending between the parties before the High Court stating that KCP, who had been expelled from AIADMK, had floated a fake website in the name of the party and was issuing fake membership cards after collecting money from party workers. It was KCP's case that the averments in the affidavit were defamatory in nature.

The Metropolitan Magistrate had refused to entertain the complaint. However, in appeal, the Madras High Court set aside the Magistrate's order in November last year, restoring the defamation proceedings against EKP. 

Today, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for EPS, averred that there was no case for defamation as KCP was in fact expelled from AIADMK. He further submitted that "we now have an Award in our favor", which is a public document. It was informed that a Section 34 petition was filed against the said Award, but the same has also been rejected.

Senior Advocates KK Venugopal and Siddharth Luthra, appearing for KCP, averred that EPS levelled not one allegation, but three. They sought to rely on case-laws to submit that if an allegation is made on affidavit, it is defamatory.

At this point, Justice Gavai queried, "If an allegation is made in judicial proceedings, it is defamatory?"

Venugopal answered in affirmative.

On behalf of KCP, it was also contended that there was an allegation of him inducting members into the party, but not one piece of evidence. For the lack of evidence, it was urged, the High Court had reversed the trial court order.

After hearing the Senior Counsels, the Bench granted leave to appeal and ordered a stay of the impugned order.

Case Title: Edappadi K Palanisamy v. KC Palanisamy, SLP(Crl) No.466/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order