Recently, the Madras High Court refused to quash a defamation case filed against Union Minister Dr. L Murugan by DMK mouthpiece Murasoli Trust. The court also directed the Special Court to complete the trial within a period of three months.

The trust lodged a private complaint against the Minister, invoking Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, due to statements he made during a press conference. The complaint asserted that the Minister's remarks created the impression that the Trust was operating on Panchami land, which is land designated for Dalits in Tamil Nadu.

While refusing to quash the proceedings pending before the Special Court, the single-headed bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh held that in cases of defamation, the statements had to be tested only from the point of view of common prudent man.

“In an offence of defamation, the statements have to be tested only from the point of view of a common prudent man, who comes across the defamatory statements made. Even if the petitioner thinks that there was no imputation and that he had merely put a question, such statements will be understood by others as if the petitioner is repeatedly questioning the right and title of the property, over which, the Murasoli Trust is functioning and he also wants to drive home the point that it is functioning in the panchami land. That is how the respondent has understood the statements made by the petitioner and even in the complaint, the allegations have been made to the effect that many others had understood it in the same manner and started making enquiries with the respondent,” the court observed.

Being prima facie satisfied that the three limbs to constitute the offence of defamation had been satisfied, the court added that it could not go into the merits of the case or the disputed question of facts at this stage.

The Minister argued that the alleged defamatory statement was not directed at the trust, making it inappropriate for the trust to file a defamation case. The Minister pointed out that the trust became involved long after the property purchase in 2022, whereas the complaint was filed in 2021. Additionally, it was asserted that the statements, even when considered in their original form, did not contain any defamatory implications that would meet the criteria outlined in Section 499 of the IPC.

On the contrary, the Trust contended that the Minister, who served as the Vice Chairperson of the National Commission for Scheduled Caste, was already aware of a High Court order instructing the Commission not to address issues related to property rights and the documentation supporting the Trust's claim to the property. The Trust argued that despite being informed of this court order, the Minister still made statements that suggested the Trust was operating on Panchami Land.

Furthermore, the Trust maintained that the purported property purchase in 2022 was irrelevant to the current quashing petition's determination.

Despite the Minister's assertion that he had simply expressed his genuine opinion on the matter and had the right to do so under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the court ruled that this matter should be determined during the trial, as it necessitated a careful examination of the facts. Consequently, the court granted the Minister the freedom to present all of his arguments before the Trial Court and dismissed his request to quash the proceedings