V. SENTHIL BALAJI Vs. NIRMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is directed at alleged defamation by the first defendant by using the media/platforms of defendants 2 to 4. In respect of such alleged defamation, the plaintiff has prayed for damages of Rs.2.00 crore, a permanent injunction to restrain the first defendant from broadcasting the tweets and video described in Schedules A to L of the plaint and any other defamatory statements and for mandatory injunctions to direct the removal of the said allegedly defamatory tweets and video. In the said suit, several interlocutory applications have been filed seeking injunctive relief and interim directions in line with the relief prayed for in the suit. In addition, the plaintiff filed A.No.5913 of 2022 to punish the first defendant for wilful disobedience of the order of ad interim injunction granted on 17/11/2022.

(2.) The plaintiff is the Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise in the Government of Tamil Nadu. The first defendant was the Tamil Nadu State President of BJP for IT and Social Media. The first defendant published a series of tweets with or without videos attached thereto. All these tweets and videos relate to the affairs of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), a corporation owned and controlled by the State of Tamil Nadu. The said tweets and videos are the focus of the suit and interim applications. The plaintiff alleges that these tweets and videos lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of society. By asserting that the plaintiff has been in public life for 25 years and has earned a respectable name in society, the plaintiff seeks relief in respect of the allegedly defamatory tweets and a video. The first defendant denies the assertion that the plaintiff enjoys a good reputation in society. The first defendant states that all the tweets and the video relate to the public functions of the plaintiff. The first defendant further states that there is sufficient material in the public domain to come to the reasonable belief that such acts of corruption are not just a result of the plaintiff's negligence but his active involvement. Therefore, the first defendant concludes that all the applications are liable to be rejected.

(3.) Oral submissions on behalf of the parties were advanced by: Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned senior counsel, and Mr.P.Wilson, learned senior counsel, both for the plaintiff; Mr.Yashod Vardhan, learned senior counsel for the first defendant; Mr.G.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the second defendant; and Mr.Arun C.Mohan, learned counsel for the third defendant. The fourth defendant was not represented at the hearing. The plaintiff and the first defendant also filed written submissions.