'Didn't Intend To Lower Murasoli Trust's Reputation' : Union Minister L Murugan Says; Supreme Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Him

The Supreme Court today quashed the defamation case filed by the trust managing DMK mouthpiece Murasoli against Union Minister and former Tamil Nadu BJP Head Dr L Murugan over his alleged defamatory statements during a press conference in 2020.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, upon Murasoli Trust's expression of intention to not continue the prosecution, after Murugan made a statement that he did not intend to hurt the sentiments of the Trust and/or cause harm/injury to its reputation.

The order was dictated thus:

"Shri Parmeswar, ld. senior counsel, on instructions of the petitioner, states that petitioner never intended either to defame the respondent-Trust or cause any harm/injury to the reputation of the said Trust. He submits that in the capacity of being leader of political party...the said statement was made though there was no intention to cause any harm/injury to the reputation of the respondent. On such statement being made, Mr NR Elango, the ld. senior advocate, and Sh. Luthra, ld. senior advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent-Trust, on instructions of the trustee, graciously state that since the petitioner has clarified that he had no intention to defame the Trust or to cause harm/injury to the Trust, they do not intend to continue with the prosecution. We place on record our appreciation for the graciousness expressed by the respondent. In that view of the matter, the impugned order as well as the criminal proceedings are quashed and set aside."

The order further recorded Murugan's submission that the alleged statements were made after he received certain complaints in the capacity of Vice-Chairman, National Commission for Scheduled Castes.

At one point, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra (for Murasoli Trust) contended that Murugan consider publishing something from his end. To this, Justice Gavai responded by saying, "you can publish our order on the front page of your newspaper and give it wide publicity".

To recap, the Murasoli Trust filed a private complaint against the Minister under Section 499 and Section 500 of IPC, for remarks made by him in a press meet. It was alleged that the Minister's statements gave an impression that the Trust was being run on Panchami land (land that is distributed for Dalits in Tamil Nadu).

On 7 September, 2023, the Madras High Court refused to quash the defamation case and directed the Special Court to complete the trial within three months. Challenging the High Court order, Murugan approached the Supreme Court and sought quashing of the case.

On September 27, the defamation proceedings were stayed by the Supreme Court.

When the matter was heard yesterday, the bench expressed to the Trust's counsels that when one enters politics, they should be ready to receive all sorts of unwarranted, unnecessary compliments. As Murugan was willing to make a statement that he did not intent to hurt the Trust's sentiments, the latter's counsel sought time to take instructions.

Background

While refusing to quash the proceedings pending before the Special Court, Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court noted that in cases of defamation, statements had to be tested only from the point of view of common prudent man and that the statements put forward by the Minister would be understood as questioning the right and title of the property.

“In an offence of defamation, the statements have to be tested only from the point of view of a common prudent man, who comes across the defamatory statements made. Even if the petitioner thinks that there was no imputation and that he had merely put a question, such statements will be understood by others as if the petitioner is repeatedly questioning the right and title of the property, over which, the Murasoli Trust is functioning and he also wants to drive home the point that it is functioning in the panchami land. That is how the respondent has understood the statements made by the petitioner and even in the complaint, the allegations have been made to the effect that many others had understood it in the same manner and started making enquiries with the respondent."

The Trust had argued before the High Court that the Minister, who was the Vice Chairperson of the National Commission for Scheduled Caste, was already aware of an order of the High Court asking the Commission not to adjudicate upon the right and title over the property and the list of documents based on which the Trust was holding title in the property. It was submitted that despite this, the Minister made the alleged statements giving an impression that the Trust was being run on Panchami Land. The Trust also submitted that the so-called purchase of the property in the year 2022 had no role to play in deciding the quashing petition before the High Court.

Though the Minister claimed that he had only given his honest opinion on the issue and that he had a right to make such statements under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the High Court said that the same was to be decided during the trial since it involved appreciation of facts.

Appearance: Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (for Murugan); Senior Advocates NR Elango and Siddharth Luthra, AoR Devyani Gupta (for Murasoli Trust)

Case Title: Dr. L. Murugan v. Murasoli Trust, SLP (Crl) No. 12091-12092/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order