Madras High Court quashes defamation complaint against Tamil Nadu Speaker M Appava Babu Murugavel of AIADMK

Justice J Jayachandran pointed out that the complaint was filed by Murugavel in his personal capacity and not in his representative capacity. The court added that Murugavel failed to prove that he was offended by Appavu’s alleged speeches. The court noted that though Murugavel claimed to have filed the complaint on behalf of the AIADMK party, he did not provide any party clearance allowing him to represent the party.

“Thus, it is clear that “some person is injured”, but it must be a person who is injured in any way. In this case, Mr. Appavu’s alleged allegation leveled against 40 MLAs of the AIADMK party during 2017 would not even remotely apply to the complainant. If he claims to carry the sword for his newly adopted party, he must be empowered to represent his party. Whereas the complaint is filed in his personal capacity and not as a representative“, the court said.

Appavu, while attending a book launch in 2023, was said to have said that after the death of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, the party was struggling and around 40 party MLAs were ready to switch their loyalties and join the DMK. Alleging that the speech defamed the party and its MLAs, Murugavel filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. The complaint was taken up and Appava was summoned to court.

Appavu sought to quash the complaint, arguing that Murugavel had no locus standi to maintain the complaint as the alleged charge was not against him and he was not a party. Thus, Appavu pointed out that there was a statutory embargo under Section 199 on the cognizance of an offense under Section 499 IPC, except in the case of a complaint by an aggrieved person. In this case, since Murugavel was not injured, the complaint was not maintainable.

Appavu also contended that the alleged statements were not defamatory under Section 499. He contended that Murugavel had not heard the speech or cross-examined any person who had heard the speech and since the speech was made without any allegation by any person or organization, it will not amount to defamation. He also questioned the filing of a complaint under the provisions of the IPC when it had already been disposed of on the date of filing.

Murugavel, however, claimed that he was joint secretary of the AIADMK State Law Department and a member of the party’s Legal Advisory Committee. He therefore argued that he was entitled to maintain the complaint. Referring to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadisan, it was held that the word “aggrieved person” does not necessarily mean the defamed person himself, but the criterion is whether the complainant had reason to feel aggrieved. at the expense of the publication.

However, the court opined that Murugavel had no locus standi to sustain the complaint. The court noted that after the speech was delivered, the party’s organizational secretary D Jayakumar responded immediately, indicating that the alleged speech was not perceived as offensive or containing defamatory allegations to demean the party or its members.

The court also noted that in the alleged speech, Appavu was talking about the situation after the death of the then Tamil Nadu chief minister in 2017, during which Murugavel was not even a member of the AIADMK party. Thus, noting that Murugavel was not an aggrieved person, the court dismissed the defamation complaint for lack of locus standi.

The plaintiff’s lawyer: Mr. P.Wilson, Senior Advisor M/s P.Wilson Associates

Defendant’s lawyer: Mr. R. John Satyan, Senior Advisor M/s Nathan & Asso

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

Case Name: Mr.Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M.Appavu v RM Babu Murugavel

Case No: Crl. OP No. 25334 of 2024