CHENNAI: The Madras high court on Thursday wondered how a statement made by Tamil Nadu assembly speaker M Appavu claiming that 40 AIADMK MLAs wished to join the DMK after the demise of former chief minister J Jayalalithaa would affect the reputation of the party and amount to criminal defamation.
“If the statement was found to be defamatory, any one of the 40 MLAs or the party itself should have approached the court,” Justice G Jayachandran said. The judge made this observation on a plea moved by Appavu seeking to quash the defamation complaint made by Advocate Babu Murugavel, which is pending before the special court for cases against MPs and MLAs.
Opposing the plea, counsel for the complainant submitted that the party (AIADMK) authorised him to move the complaint on its behalf. To this, the court said, “No authorisation can be given to file a defamation complaint. Proxy cannot be allowed in such issues.”
The court then adjourned the hearing to Oct 22 for the complainant to respond to the plea.
Earlier, when the plea came up for hearing, senior advocate P Wilson, representing the speaker, submitted that the complaint was liable to be quashed since the alleged offending speech made by the petitioner did not amount to defamation of a political party.
“Even if a political party has been defamed, it is only the president or secretary of the party who can initiate defamation proceedings,” he said.
He said the complainant had not even stated that he was a member of AIADMK during the relevant period of time after the demise of Jayalalithaa. The complainant joined AIADMK only in 2018, he said.
“If the statement was found to be defamatory, any one of the 40 MLAs or the party itself should have approached the court,” Justice G Jayachandran said. The judge made this observation on a plea moved by Appavu seeking to quash the defamation complaint made by Advocate Babu Murugavel, which is pending before the special court for cases against MPs and MLAs.
Opposing the plea, counsel for the complainant submitted that the party (AIADMK) authorised him to move the complaint on its behalf. To this, the court said, “No authorisation can be given to file a defamation complaint. Proxy cannot be allowed in such issues.”
The court then adjourned the hearing to Oct 22 for the complainant to respond to the plea.
Earlier, when the plea came up for hearing, senior advocate P Wilson, representing the speaker, submitted that the complaint was liable to be quashed since the alleged offending speech made by the petitioner did not amount to defamation of a political party.
“Even if a political party has been defamed, it is only the president or secretary of the party who can initiate defamation proceedings,” he said.
He said the complainant had not even stated that he was a member of AIADMK during the relevant period of time after the demise of Jayalalithaa. The complainant joined AIADMK only in 2018, he said.
You may also like
Granddaughters of 2 Haryana former CMs in Saini's team
One food increases your risk of dying more than any other - most of us eat it
Delhi: Fire breaks out at chemical warehouse in Kailashpuri Extension, no casualties
'Time to bury the past': Nawaz outreach to PM
Prince Harry 'wanted out' of The Firm years before leaving - but stayed for one relative
