Kerala Court orders Malayala Manorama to pay ₹10 lakh compensation for defaming wife of CPI(M) leader

A court in Kerala recently ordered Malayala Manorama newspaper to pay compensation of ₹10 lakh to PK Indira, wife of CPI(M) leader EP Jayarajan, in a defamation case filed by her against the daily [PK Indira v. Jacob Mathew]..The defamation case filed by Indira was about an article published in the newspaper in 2020 alleging that she had gone to a bank locker in violation of Covid-19 quarantine and that it was done in the wake of news about her son's alleged association with gold-smuggling accused Swapna Suresh. .Judge Karunakaran B in Kannur delivered the judgment finding Manorama liable to pay damages for libel."The impugned publication as per Ext.A1 (news article) is per se defamatory to the plaintiff (Indira) and the defendants (Manorama employees) have miserably failed to prove that their action was justified by truth and good faith... Imputation of one’s reputation is of serious concern, especially when the allegation is attributed to corruption, gold scam, etc. Plaintiff’s name has been dragged into a serious issue of the time, lowering her image before right thinking people, without taking due care and caution before publication," the judgment stated. .Manorama's publisher, editorial director, chief editor an editor and a reporter were directed to pay ₹10 lakh to Indira jointly and severally, with 6% per annum interest from the date of decree till realisation. .The news item in question was published on September 14, 2020 on the front page of the Malayalam daily.Apart from saying that Indira violated quarantine rules, the article stated that a central investigating agency is looking into her sudden trip to access the locker. It also stated that the locker was accessed in the wake of a central agency's probe into some photos of Indira and Jayarajan's son with Swapna Suresh. Indira filed the defamation suit alleging that the article was published by Malayala Manorama with the malicious intention to damage her reputation as well as that of her husband. She claimed that she had not violated quarantine rules and that she was unaware of any central agency probe into her access of the bank locker.Refuting the claims of defamation, Manorama argued that they had verified the information with a reliable source and that the article was published in good faith. .The Court, however, noted that Manorama had not produced any documentary evidence to back up their claims, even though the onus of proof was on them to back up their claims in a defamation case. The Court also agreed with Indira that the article was per se defamatory. "On reading the news, it would appear that plaintiff has some nexus with the alleged connection of her son with Mrs Swapana Suresh. So, the news item is per se defamatory, unless justified with proof of its truth. So, the defendants could succeed only if they are able to establish truth of its contents, to the extend which imputed reputation of the plaintiff," the Court said in the judgment. Even if there was a violation of quarantine guidelines, it is not a matter for publication on the front page of a leading daily, the Court opined. .The Court ultimately decreed the suit in favour of Indira and directed Manorama to pay ₹10 lakh to her as compensation. .Inidra was represented by advocates PU Shailajan, KP Rajendra Babu and M Rajagopalan Nair. Manorana was represented by advocates Sharesh Kumar, VIshnu S and Milu Dandapani M..[Read Judgment]