LAWS(MAD)-2020-8-205

MATHEW SAMEUL Vs. EDAPADI K. PALANISAMY

Decided On August 19, 2020
Mathew Sameul Appellant
V/S
Edapadi K. Palanisamy Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for rejecting the plaint has been filed by the 1st defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking damages from the defendants for the defamatory video put up in the YouTube and other social medias and for an injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents etc., from releasing, circulating, publishing any video clippings or articles or giving press interviews and/or post any items, messages on social media containing any allegations as found in the videos that had been uploaded in the social media platform. The 1st respondent/plaintiff would set out the following in his pleadings which is extracted in brief hereunder.

(2.) The events that has compelled the 1st respondent/plaintiff to file the above suit was a video uploaded on YouTube and other social media platforms in which the applicant/1st defendant is shown as interviewing one Sayan who is an accused in a pending criminal case. The very interview and the choice of words has been made with the singular motive of maligning the 1st respondent herein and casting aspersions on his character. The video clipping related to an incident of criminal trespass, murder and robbery which had occurred in the Kodanadu Estate at Nilgiris (hereinafter referred to as the Kodanadu Estate Case) which was the home of the former Chief Minister of the State, Dr. J. Jayalalitha, to whose party the 1st respondent belongs to.

(3.) The 1st respondent in his plaint has described in detail his public standing. He would state that he is not only a member of a recognized political party but is today the Chief Minister of the State. He has also described the reputation that he enjoys in the midst of the public on account of the public services and contributions that have been made by him and also on account of his standing in politics which spans a period of over four decades. The plaintiff would also narrate as to how the content of the video is per se defamatory and how people known to him and several others have viewed the said clipping and informed him about the same.