Parties seek gag on media over defamatory articles

Chennai

As of now, both the AIADMK and the DMK are busy seeking a judicial gag order against certain publications.

While DMK’s Rajya Sabha member Kanimozhi has already obtained an interim restraint order against Tamil bi-weekly Kumudam, former Chief Minister and AIADMK leader O Paneerselvam is trying to gag three Tamil dailies — Dinakaran, Tamil Murasu and Dinamalar.

Paneerselvam seeking to restrain these dailies has its source in certain articles, which claimed that ‘he along with four others, formed a coterie to act against the Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.’ He had moved a civil suit against Kal Publications Private Limited promoters of Dinakaran and Tamil Dailies, seeking an interim injunction to restrain both the publications from publishing defamatory news articles against him.

Vendetta vs Constitutional right

When the case came for hearing before a single judge K K Sasidharan, arguments prevailed over political vendetta versus freedom of speech. Senior counsel R Muthukumaraswamy appearing on behalf of Paneerselvam submitted that promoters of Kal publications were close to DMK and hence the articles smacked of political vengeance. He also submitted a series of such allegedly defamatory articles and contended that Paneerselvam is entitled to the protection guaranteed by the Constitution, like any other citizen.

On the other hand, senior counsel A R L Sundaresan appearing for the two dailies argued that gagging a newspaper from publishing news items would violate the freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution. He also contended that similar such articles have appeared in other dailies as well.

No blanket order for now

However, Justice Sasidharan on observing that the core question is as to whether newspapers should be restrained from publishing articles and news items, which are defamatory in nature, said “Since the counsel appearing for the two dailies has submitted that he would produce materials to substantiate the correctness of the statements made in two newspapers, it would not be proper to pass a blanket order of injunction.”

Interestingly, the matter does not end here. Justice Sasidharan on mentioning the plea moved by Kanimozhi, daughter of DMK chief Karunanidhi, against Kumudam , wherein an interim stay has been granted, said “Since the plea moved by Kumudam management seeking to vacate the order is coming up for hearing before me on April 11, 2016, and since identical issues are raised in the application, I am of the view that both the matter should be taken together.”

Kanimozhi had filed the suit seeking Rs 1 crore as damages for reportedly publishing a malicious and defamatory article titled Swami Vambaanandha . She had submitted that the entire article is a work of fiction and there is absolutely no truth or basis to any of the claims made in the article.

Justice Subbiah, who had heard the case then granted an interim injunction holding that there exists prima facie case in favour of Kanimozhi.

For now, with the Madras High Court seized of the matter, it remains to be seen as to what per se constitutes a defamatory article and how far the publishing houses can go in terms of freedom of speech.