HC stays proceedings against Stalin’s son-in-law in defamation suit filed by Pollachi V. Jayaraman

He had preferred an appeal against single judge’s refusal to strike out his name from the plaint

The Madras High Court on Monday stayed all further proceedings against Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s son-in-law V. Sabarisan in a defamation suit preferred in 2020 by the then Deputy Speaker Pollachi V. Jayaraman of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) seeking damages of ₹1 crore for having reportedly linked his name with the Pollachi serial sexual assault and blackmailing case.

Justices M. Duraiswamy and T.V. Thamilselvi granted the interim stay on an appeal preferred by Mr. Sabarisan against a single judge’s refusal to strike out his name from the plaint. Senior counsel N.R. Elango argued that the appellant had no connection whatsoever with the alleged defamatory remarks and therefore there was absolutely no necessity for him to undergo the rigour of facing trial in the civil suit.

However, while refusing to strike out his name, the single judge had stated that while considering such an application, the court had to see only the averments in the plaint and not the defence taken out by the applicant. On a reading of the averments in Mr. Jayaraman’s plaint and also the documents annexed to it, it had been pleaded that the applicant was also responsible for the defamatory remarks.

“Whether he is responsible and how he is related to the issue can be decided only at the time of trial and not at this stage. All the grounds taken by the learned senior counsel for the applicant are matters for trial. Therefore, at this stage, the averment reveals the cause of action against this applicant also. Therefore, this application is dismissed,” the single judge had observed.

Assailing the single judge’s order, the senior counsel argued the suit had primarily been filed against the Chief Minister, a television channel and a couple of journalists. There was no reason why Mr. Sabarisan’s name was included in the case. The appellant was the son-in-law of the first defendant, beyond that there was no link between him and the suit for defamation, he contended.

Convinced with his submissions prima facie, the Division Bench granted the interim stay, permitted advocate Arvind Srevastava to take notice on behalf of Mr. Jayaraman and adjourned the appeal for further hearing on June 10.