The Supreme Court in a relief to All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, AIADMK leader Edappadi K Palaniswami, EPS observed and has stayed the order of the Madras High Court which restored the criminal defamation proceedings initiated against him by expelled AIADMK leader KC Palanisamy, KCP. The bench comprising of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta in the case observed and has passed the interim order while granting leave to appeal for Palaniswami’s petition.
The court in the case Edappadi K Palanisamy v. KC Palanisamy, S was hearing the defamation complaint filed by KCP against EPS, wherein it is averred that EPS had filed an affidavit in arbitration proceedings pending between the parties before the High Court stating that KCP, who had been expelled from AIADMK, had floated a fake website in the name of the party and was issuing fake membership cards after collecting money from
party workers.
Therefore, it being the case of KCP’s that the averments in the affidavit were defamatory
in nature. Further, the Metropolitan Magistrate in the case observed and has refused to entertain the complaint. The Madras High Court in the case observed and has set aside the order of the Magistrate in November last year, restoring the defamation proceedings against EKP.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for EPS averred before the court that there was no case for defamation as KCP was in fact expelled from AIADMK.
Further, it has been submitted by him that ‘we now have an Award in our favor’, which is a public document. Thus, it was also informed that a Section 34 petition was filed against the said Award, but the same has also been rejected. On the other hand, the counsel, Senior Advocate KK Venugopal and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for KCP, averred before the court that EPS levelled not one allegation, but three.
TDG
Thus, they seek to rely on case-laws to submit that if an allegation is made on affidavit, it is defamatory. The bench headed by Justice Gavai stated that if an allegation is made in
judicial proceedings, it is defamatory?
Thus, Venugopal an swered in affirmative. It was contended on behalf of KCP that there was an allegation of him inducting members into the party, but not one piece of evidence.
The High Court reserved the order of trial court. The bench while considering the facts and circumstances of case observed and has granted leave to appeal and ordered a stay of the
impugned order.
