Read Time: 08 minutes

The Madras High Court has quashed a criminal defamation case filed against AIADMK coordinator O. Panneerselvam and joint coordinator Edappadi K. Palaniswami. 

The Bench of Justice M Nirmal Kumar while allowing the petition filed by Palanisamy and Panneerselvam held that there is no material or reason to proceed against them and that further continuation of proceeding is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

The respondent Va.Pugazhendi, former spokesperson of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) had filed the defamation case after he was expelled from the party.

He had alleged that he earned a good reputation over several decades in the AIADMK by relentlessly and sincerely carrying out the reasonable dictates of the party's high command because of which he was made the State Secretary of Karnataka and also was in charge of various Parliamentary Constituencies. After the demise of former CM J. Jayalalitha and the subsequent split of the AIADMK party, in  2016 Pugazhendi joined the group led by TTV Dinakaran.

In 2020, the petitioners admitted Pugazhendi into the party and also appointed him as the Official Spokesperson. They also made him the Joint Secretary of the AIADMK party on February 12, 2021. He was a Star Campaigner for the party.

However, later, on June 14, 2021, Pugazhendi was expelled from all his posts and also from his primary membership of the AIADMK party via a letter.

According to Pugazhendi, the letter had vague and baseless allegations against him and had directed other AIADMK cadres not to have any contact with the respondent in any manner. The news of his expulsion reached all nook and corner of Tamil Nadu and was widely circulated on News Channels, Papers, Online Media/Channels, etc.

Therefore, alleging that the petitioners together with criminal intent tarnished his image, he filed a private complaint against the petitioners for the offense of defamation under Section 499 and 500 of IPC, in the trial court, and a summon was issued.

Before the high court, the petitioners contended that the expulsion notice issued to the respondent is a routine one and is necessary to run the party in a disciplined manner. They averred that when the respondent was earlier expelled, a similar notice with the same language and tenor was issued which was not challenged by him at that time.

The petitioners further contended that merely narrating the reason for expulsion filing a defamation case is not the answer as the Coordinator and Joint Coordinators are the supreme authority to take a final decision in the disciplinary matter.

They also submitted that since Pugazhendi was represented in public as an official spokesperson of the AIADMK party, the decision to remove him from the party was necessary to be informed to the general public as well as to the party cadres.

Court observed that Pugazhendi's primary resentment was with the manner in which he was expelled and that cannot be recovered through a defamation case against the petitioners. Court also held that the expulsion letter also did not contain any imputation that other party cadres must not have any contact with the respondent.

"Further as per Explanation (4) of Section 499 IPC, the imputation must directly or indirectly in the estimation of others lower the moral or intellectual character of that person or lower the credit of that person. In this case, there is no material to show in the complaint or in the sworn statement who are the others who questioned the respondent, and thereby, he was defamed. The petitioners being Coordinator and Joint Coordinator have lawful authority to take disciplinary action against all in the AIADMK party," observed the court.

Lastly, Court, seeing that the disciplinary actions of communication are a regular practice of the party and that the expulsion letter was issued in a regular language, allowed the petition and quashed the defamatory proceedings against the petitioners. 

Case Title: Edappadi K. Palanisamy and Anr v. Va.Pugazhendi