Madras High Court

Edappadi K.Palanisami vs Dayanidhi Maran on 25 April, 2025

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                                              Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 25.04.2025

                                                              CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                  Crl.O.P.No.7661 of 2025
                                                and Crl.M.P.No.4928 of 2025

                Edappadi K.Palanisami                                                       ... Petitioner

                                                                   Vs

                Dayanidhi Maran                                       ... Respondent
                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 428 of Cr.P.C/
                Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the
                records pertaining to the C.C.No.8 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Special
                Court for trial of cases related to members of parliament and members of
                legislative assembly for Tamil Nadu and quash the entire proceedings.
                                           For Petitioner : Mr.R.John Sathyan
                                                            Senior Counsel
                                                            for Mr.I.S.Inbadurai
                                           For Respondent : Mrs.M.Sneha

                                                            ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8 of

2024 on the file of the Additional Special Court for trial of cases related to

members of parliament and members of legislative assembly for Tamil Nadu.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 08:26:45 pm )

the materials placed on record.

3. The respondent filed a complaint for the offence punishable under

Section 500 of IPC alleging that the petitioner, while addressing a public

gathering on 15.04.2024, at Thana Street, Purasaiwalkam, Chennai, in support

of his allied party candidate in the general election for Parliament in the Lok

Sabha made defamatory statements as against the respondent. He made a false

acquisition against the respondent, defaming his services towards the people of

the said constituency, thereby the petitioner caused severe damage to his

reputation and there were several enquires from various people which had

ultimately lowered the respondent's reputation among the general public.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the part of the petitioner's speech which was alleged to be

defamatory made by the petitioner as criticism on the functioning of the persons

in the Government and as such, it would not amount to defamation. His entire

speech is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the

freedom guaranteed to the petitioner to criticize the persons in the Government

cannot be taken away by the complaint for defamation. The speech of the

petitioner is coming under the third exception of the provision under Section

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 08:26:45 pm )

199 of IPC. Accordingly, it is not defamation to express in good faith any

opinion whatever respecting conduct of any person touching any public

question and respecting his character so far as his character appears in that

conduct and no further.

5. The contents of the petitioner as per the respondent is in line with

the above exception and the desire of the petitioner is entirely for the benefit of

general public. He had solely engaged himself in canvassing for the candidate

of his allied party. The complaint itself is not maintainable for the lack of

territorial jurisdiction, since the Trial Court had failed to follow the procedure

as contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C, since the petitioner is residing

out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court and as such, the Trial Court

ought to have ordered for enquiry before taking cognizance. He also relied

upon the fourth exception of Section 499 of IPC. Accordingly, the alleged

speech of the petitioner had no way harmed the reputation of the respondent.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit

that the respondent is the member of Parliament and elected from Chennai

Central Constituency. While he was contesting in the 2024 MP election in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 08:26:45 pm )

Chennai, the petitioner made defamatory statement against the respondent,

thereby his reputation among the general public was completely tarnished.

Therefore, the Trial Court had rightly taken cognizance and the grounds raised

by the petitioner can be taken into consideration only before the trial Court

during trial by let-in evidence.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. The respondent filed a complaint for the offence under Section

499 and 500 of IPC. The Trial Court had taken cognizance on the complaint

lodged by the respondent. According to the respondent, the petitioner made a

speech while addressing a public gathering on 15.04.2024 during the election

campaign of general election for the member of Parliament in the Chennai

Central Constituency. The alleged statement made by the petitioner is extracted

as follows:-

“ mnjhl ,d;idf;F ek;Kila ntl;ghsu; bghUj;j tiuf;Fk; vspikahdtu; Tg;gpl;l FuYf;F Xnlho tUgtu; ek;Kila Tl;lzp fl;rp ntl;ghsu; kf;fSf;fhf ghLglf; Toatu;/ Mdhy; vjpu;j;j epw;fpw jpuhtpl Kd;ndw;wj;jpDila ntl;ghsu; mtUila brhe;j eyDf;fhf nghl;oapLfpwhu;/ mtUila brhj;Jf;fis fhg;ghw;w ntz;Lk;. ,d;Dk; brhj;Jfis tpupt[ gLj;j ntz;Lk;/ Mf ,UtUf;Fk;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 08:26:45 pm )

,Jjhd; tpj;jpahrk;/ Mf kf;fSf;F nrit bra;fpd;w ntl;ghsu; ntz;Lkh my;yJ mtUila FLk;gj;Jf;F brhj;J nru;f;fpd;w ntl;ghsu; ntQqkhd;D jhd; ,e;j nju;jYila nghl;o/ Mfnt kf;fSf;F nrit bra;fpd;w ntl;ghsUf;F xU tha;g;ig jhU';fs; jhU';fs; vd;W ,Ufuk; Tg;gp c';fis nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,d;idf;F ,';nf nghl;oapLfpd;w jpuhtpl Kd;ndw;wj;jpd; ntl;ghsu; ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpduhf ,Uf;fpwhu;/ ,e;j ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpdu; ehlhSkd;w nkk;ghl;L epjp fpl;lj;jl;l 75% ePjp brynt bra;ay/ mg;god;dh ,tu; vg;go bray;gw;WUf;fhUd;D vd;gij vz;zpg; ghU';f/ mtu; vg;go kf;fSf;F nrit bra;thu;/ ,e;j ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpdUf;F xJf;fg;gl;l ePjpia kf;fSf;F vd;bdd;d jpl;l';fs; ntz;Lk;D nfl;L bray;gLj;jpapUe;jh ey;y ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpdu;/ kf;fisna ghu;g;gJ fpilahJ nju;jy; te;jhy; jhnd kf;fis ghf;Fwh';f kWgoa[k; mLj;j nju;jy; te;jhjhnd kf;fis ghf;Fwh';f mg;g[wk; vg;go kf;fspd; Fiwfis nfl;lKoa[k; me;j Fiwfis bjup";rpf;f Koa[k; mjdhyjhd; mtUila ehlhSkd;w bjhFjp nkk;ghl;L epjpa Kf;fhthrp bryt[ bra;ay Mf ,g;go kw;w ehlhSkd;w cWg;gpdu nju;e;bjLj;j ,e;j kj;jpa brd;idy vg;go ed;ik fpilf;Fk;

vz;zpg;ghU';fs; mnjhl”

9. The petitioner is the member of the Legislative Assembly,

Edappadi, Salem District. Apart from that the petitioner is the General

Secretary of opposition party and former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil

Nadu. As a part of his election campaign, the petitioner had discussed the

plights faced by the general public of the Chennai Central Constituency. At that

juncture, the petitioner made the above statements and it established the duty of

the public servant to know the needs and serve accordingly. It also shows the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 08:26:45 pm )

benefit of the public at large and he had no way defamed the respondent at any

point of time. Further, the petitioner has right to comment on public affairs

which includes the right to criticize people holding public post and also to

criticize the public policies. In fact, the statement was published in Hindu News

Daily. In accordance with the said news, the petitioner made statements. The

Hindu news also produced before this Court dated 13.04.2024 under the

heading of “Union Ministry data point to nearly 75% MPLADS funds from

2019-24 in T.N. Lying unspent”. As per data, no expenditure was listed under

the Chennai Central and Vellore Parliamentary constituencies. Accordingly, the

petitioner had spoken in the election campaign for the benefit of general public

while canvassing his party's allied candidate for the post of member of

Parliament. Therefore, the entire speech was made in a bonafide manner,

having relied on the multiple media reports, which are already within the realm

of public knowledge. Therefore, there is absolutely no imputations with new

statement.

10. It is relevant to extract the provisions under Sections 499 of IPC

as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 08:26:45 pm )

“ 499. Defamation — Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

...........

Third Exception — Conduct of any person touching any public question.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending a such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharges of the duties of which the public is interested.

Wherein, the contents of the petitioner as per the complaint version is in align with the above illustration and the desire of the petitioner is entirely for the benefit of general public. Further, the petitioner had solely engaged himself in canvassing for the candidate of his allied party. Hence, the above said complaint does not constitute the said offence.”

11. The right to dissent is a fundamental right- questions by political

rival cannot be termed as defamation. The 9-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in K.S.Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J) Vs Union of India, reported in 2017 10

SCC 1 recognized and observed that right to dissent is essential part of the

constitution. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 08:26:45 pm )

“ 266.... Our Constitution places the individual at the forefront of its focus, guaranteeing civil and political rights in Part III and embodying an aspiration for achieving socio- economic rights in Part IV. The refrain that the poor need no civil and political rights and are concerned only with economic well-being has been utilised through history to wreak the most egregious violations of human rights. Above all, it must be realised that it is the right to question, the right to scrutinise and the right to dissent which enables an informed citizenry to scrutinise the actions of the Government. Those who are governed are entitled to question those who govern, about the discharge of their constitutional duties including in the provision of socio-economic welfare benefits. The power to scrutinise and to reason enables the citizens of a democratic polity to make informed decisions on basic issues which govern their rights. The theory that civil and political rights are subservient to socio-economic rights has been urged in the past and has been categorically rejected in the course of constitutional adjudication by this Court.”

12. It is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the Constitution Bench

of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P.

reported in 2023 4 SCC 1, wherein it was held as follows:-

“ The right to dissent, disagree and adopt varying and individualistic points of view inheres in every citizen of this Country. In fact, the right to dissent is the essence of a vibrant democracy, for it is only when there is dissent that different ideas would emerge which may be of help or assist the Government to improve or innovate upon its policies so that its governance would have a positive effect on the people of the country which would ultimately lead to stability, peace and development which are concomitants of good governance.”

13. Therefore, the Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression and

the Right to Hold Public Meetings is enshrined in the constitution of India and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 08:26:45 pm )

they are fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen of India. Hence, the

speech of the petitioner can only be construed as dissent and fair criticism.

14. Further, the Trial Court ought to have applied its mind before

taking cognizance whether the statements made by the petitioner has prima

facie to issue summons for prosecution. It is relevant to rely upon the Judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manoj Kumar Tiwari v.

Manish Sisodia, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1434 (Para 60, 61, 62, 63,

64) has held that before issuing summons the magistrate has to apply his

judicial mind and determine whether the statement is prima facie defamatory in

nature before issuing summons to the accused, the court further held that if the

allegation in the complaint do not constitute an offence as complained of, then

the accused should not be made to undergo the rigor of trial. In the present facts

and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the allegations prima-facie

are not defamatory in nature. The Supreme Court further held that “Claim made

by a person involved in politics that the answers provided by his rival in public

office to the question posed by him, cannot be termed as defamatory”.

15. That apart, the Trial Court did not follow the procedure as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 08:26:45 pm )

contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioner is

residing out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The complainant

had explicitly stated as follows:-

“ The complainant submits that since the residence of Mr.D. Vijayakumar/Dhanapalan located at Villivakkam, the cause of action falls within the limits of V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, hence this Hon'ble Court have the territorial jurisdiction to try this case". Whereas, as per the section 199 of Cr.P.C:

"Prosecution of defamation (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:

*********** (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint."

Whereas, with respect to the jurisdiction of the magistrate to take cognizance of the offence for prosecution of defamation U/s. 199 of Cr. P. C comes under the ambit either under section 177 of the Cr.P.C:

"Ordinary place of inquiry and trial:

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed" or as per section 179 of the Cr.P.C. "Offence triable, where act is done or consequence ensues When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued."

As per the scenario in the present case, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 08:26:45 pm )

complainant had preferred the present complaint before the Learned XIII Magistrate, Egmore Court, as per the whims and fancies of the complainant, and the present complaint is not maintainable for the lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is further to be noted that as per Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

"Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:

************** Whereas, in the present case the petitioner is residing at NB 9, Sevvanthi Illam, Greenways Road, R.A Puram, Chennai in such circumstance there are no proofs available in record of the court to establish the fact that the above procedure was followed prior to sending summons to the petitioner which is not sustainable in eyes of the law.

20. The Petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jaideep Bose v. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 348 (Para 19.3 and 20) had quashed the summons issued by magistrate in a Defamation Complaint under S.499, I.P.C since the procedure under S.202(1) was not followed and the said judgement is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

16. In view of the above, the averments made in the complaint and

the statements made by the respondent did not constitute any offence under

Section 500 of IPC. Therefore, the entire complaint is liable to be quashed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 08:26:45 pm )

Accordingly, the complaint in C.C.No.8 of 2024 on the file of the Additional

Special Court for trial of cases related to members of parliament and members

of legislative assembly for Tamil Nadu, is hereby quashed.

17. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

25.04.2025

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 08:26:45 pm )