How does Speaker’s speech amount to defaming AIADMK, asks Madras HC judge

Madras High Court questions defamation case against Tamil Nadu Speaker, queries locus standi of party spokesperson.

The Madras High Court on Thursday wanted to know how a speech delivered by Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker M. Appavu at a book release event on November 21, 2023, amounted to defaming the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK).

Justice G. Jayachandran granted time till October 22 for the complainant’s counsel to answer the question raised by him. The judge also wanted to know whether the complainant, being the party’s spokesperson, had the locus standi to file the criminal defamation case.

The queries were raised during the hearing of a plea by Mr. Appavu to quash the case pending before a special court for legislators in Chennai. Senior Counsel P. Wilson, representing the Speaker, contended that only a person at the helm of the party could file such a complaint.

He cited the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy versus Union of India (2006) and also by the Madras High Court in Dr. Tamilisai Soundararajan versus Dhadi K. Karthikeyan (2021) to contend that a spokesperson could not be allowed to represent the party.

It was brought to the notice of the court that the complainant R.M. Babu Murugavel had accused that Speaker claimed that around 40 AIADMK MLAs were ready to join the DMK after Jayalalithaa’s death in 2016 and that a prominent AIADMK leader had contacted him to facilitate the shifting of loyalties.

“Even assuming, but not admitting, that the said statement was made by the present petitioner, the statement has nothing to do with the respondent herein and as such the respondent is not the person who can claim to have been defamed. The complaint is not maintainable at all,” the senior counsel said.

On the other hand, when the complainant’s counsel claimed that he had the authorisation of the party leadership to file the private complaint before the special court, the judge wondered whether a complaint for criminal defamation could be filed on the basis of such an authorisation.