Madras High Court Upholds 2015 Order Directing Sun TV To Pay Compensation To Actress Sukanya Over Defamatory Remarks In Veerappan Interview

Justice K Kumaresh Babu upheld the order after noting that there was malice on the part of Sun TV for not editing the defamatory part and not airing a regret in its own channel later. It may be noted that Sun TV had issued a regret in another magazine. The court noted that there was no explanation given on why the regret was published in a third-party magazine instead of airing it in the channel itself.

“It is further to be noted that if such a regret been published in its own broadcast, it would have reached the very same viewer who would have viewed the publication it had made earlier. This itself would show malice on the part of the appellant in only opting to give a regret in a third party magazine, which was also not substantiated to have wider reach than its viewers,” the court observed.

The court also agreed with the submissions made by Sukanya's counsel that, Sun TV did not taken any diligent steps to verify the contents of the interview either by seeking a clarification from the actress or by "making any investigation with other third parties before publishing the interview" on the channel.

"Having reserved the right to edit, cut, delete or modify, alter and add any portion with an unrestricted right, it is the duty that is enjoined upon the appellant to verify the contents of the interview before its publication. In view of the aforesaid findings, I answer the issue against the appellant," the court added.

Background

The case related to an interview aired in April 1996 where Gopal was conversing with Veerappan. During the interview, that Veerappan had made defamatory statements against the actress, linking her to a political party member's relative. The interview was broadcast by Sun TV.

Arguing that the said interview was offensive to her dignity and lowered her image among her friends, family and the society, the actress filed a defamation suit against Sun TV, Gopal, and Veerappan claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 10,00,500/- and seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the broadcast of the interview.

Sun TV denied the allegations against it and argued that it had aired the interview only after Gopal had approached the channel to telecast the interview. It was argued that the channel had no intention to defame anyone and even at the start of the programme, it had displayed a notice stating that the views expressed in the programme were that of Veerappan and Sun TV was not responsible for its authenticity. The channel also argued that when the issue was brough to its notice, it had immediately come out with an apology and did no re-telecast the programme.

Gopal argued that his intention, through the interview was only to investigate into Veerappan's illegal activities and he did not have any intention to defame anyone. It was argued that as per the terms and conditions of the telecast agreement, Sun TV had the authority to edit portions of the interview.

The court had decreed the suit noting that there was ill will on the part of Sun TV in broadcasting the programme, knowing about the defamatory content, and the same was undoubtedly to acquire wrongful gain to the company. The trial court also rejected the challenge raised by Sun and Gopal with respect to the public image of the actress or the wrongful loss suffered by her. The court had thus directed Sun TV to pay damages to the actress. Challenging this the present appeal was filed.

The court noted that though Sun TV claimed that no loss of damage was caused to the actress, they had not discredited her deposition regarding the same at the time of trial. The court held that after failing to discredit the same at the time of chief examination, the company would not now claim that the actress had failed to substantiate the loss of her reputation.

The court also noted that as per the broadcast agreement entered into between Sun TV and Gopal, Sun TV had the unrestricted right to edit, modify, cut, delete, alter, or add any portion. The court noted that when the channel had such right, it was upon the channel to verify the content of the interview before publication.

The court also noted that the channel was the beneficiary of various commercial advertisements during the telecast of the program. The court thus found that the court below had rightly fastened the responsibility on the channel.

Thus, finding no merits in the appeal, the court dismissed the same.

Counsel for Appellants: Mr. R. Palaniandavan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Perumpulavil Radhakrishnan, Mr.P.T.Perumal

Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244

Case No: AS No. 971 of 2015