Freedom Of Press Can't Be Used To Tarnish Reputation Without Verifying News: Madras HC Orders Tamil Weekly To Pay ₹25 Lakh To DMK's TR Balu

Justice AA Nakkiran remarked that the freedom of press was to be used for publishing news to the people backed by solid proof and could not be used to tarnish the image and reputation of a person without verifying the veracity of the news. The court added that Junior Vikatan, being a renowned magazine should have been more cautious before publishing the news.

“In the event of enjoying the freedom of press, they have all the liberty to publish the news to bring out to the people with the solid proof and they should not tarnish the image and reputation of a person without verifying the veracity of the news and confirming the same. Being the renowned magazine among the people having wide circulation, they should take much more cautious before publishing the news and they cannot take the privilege to tarnish the image and reputation of the Plaintiff amongst the minds of the public while the plaintiff held in various posts. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for causing the damages to the reputation of the plaintiff by the defendants,” the court said.

Balu had approached the court seeking Rs 1 crore as damages. He had also sought a permanent injunction restraining the magazine from printing, publishing, and circulating defamatory news relating to him or his family.

Balu submitted that on 28^th March 2012, the bi-weekly magazine, in their question and answer session had made some defamatory statements against him. He submitted that in the pretext of answering a question from the reader, the magazine had stated that Balu had unduly benefitted from the 'Sethu Samuthiram' project suggesting that he had made personal gains. Balu pointed out that the Sethu Samuthiram project, which was launched in 2005 while he was serving as the Union Minister for Shipping, Road Transport and Highways had been stalled only due to pending litigations, and thus, the statements by the magazine had brought disrepute to him.

He also submitted that though a legal notice was issued to the defendants asking them to not repeat such unethical acts of publishing mischievous and defamatory articles, the magazine, on December 22, 2012, again published a defamatory article stating that Balu, while speaking at a DMK meeting had referred to Rahul Gandhi as 'small child'. Arguing that he never spoke at the meeting, he submitted that the defendants had lowered his character and had caused a great dent in his image and reputation.

Balu argued that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution included a right to live a decent and dignified life. He also pointed out that his family did not fall under the domain of a public figure and the defendants had no right to indulge in mudslinging against him or his family.

On the other hand, the defendants argued that they had not indulged in any sinister methods for the sake of increasing their circulation. It was submitted that the contents published by the magazine were not defamatory. Regarding the first article, the magazine claimed that litigation in the same was barred by limitation as it was made in the year 2012. With respect to the second article, it was submitted that Balu had failed to show how the article affected his reputation. It was also argued that the same news was published by other magazines also and Balu had never denied the veracity of the news item.

The court agreed with the first contention of the defendant regarding limitation. The court noted that since the first article was published in 2012, the suit relating to that article would be barred by limitation.

However, with respect to the second article, the court noted that the defendants had not produced a single document on the basis of which the news was published in their magazine. The court also noted that the defendants, in their evidence, had deposed that the general body meeting, where the alleged speech was made, was in-camera and the press was allowed only at the beginning of the program and at the end to take pictures. The court thus noted that the defendants had failed to prove how they were at the meeting hall during the relevant time or that Balu had spoken the published contents in the meeting.

Thus, the court concluded that the news item published in the weekly was malicious and defamatory and it lowered Balu's character and reputation. Thus, the court ordered the defendants to pay a compensation of Rs 25,00,000 to Balu. At the same time, the court said that Balu could not have a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing in the future.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Counsel (For M/s. P. Wilson Associates)

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. N. Ramesh

Case Title: TR Balu v R Kannan and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 44

Case No: C.S No.252 of 2014