Supreme Court Stays DMK Newspaper's Defamation Case Against Union Minister & BJP Leader L Murugan

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (27.09.2023) stayed the defamation proceedings against Union Minister Dr. L Murugan and former Tamil Nadu BJP Head initiated by DMK mouthpiece Murasoli Trust. Earlier this month, the Madras High Court had refused to quash the proceedings, against which Murugan approach the Apex Court in appeal. 

The Murasoli trust had filed a private complaint against the Minister under Section 499 and Section 500 of the IPC, for the 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).

Today, a bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra stayed the defamation proceedings. 

On 7th September, the Madras High Court had refused to quash the defamation case filed against Murugan and directed the Special Court to complete the trial within three months.

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, the 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 High Court had observed.

The Trust had argued in 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 even after this, the Minister had 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 had said that the same was to be decided during the trial since it involved appreciation of facts. 

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

Click Here To Read/Download Order