Tirupati Laddu row: Eenadu claims YV Subba Reddy placed false translation of news articles to mislead Delhi High Court

Telugu media house Eenadu has filed an application questioning Delhi High Court's territorial jurisdiction to hear a defamation case filed by former Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) chairperson YV Subba Reddy (YSR) over media reports on the Tirupati laddu ghee adulteration controversy [YSR & Anr. Vs Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited & Ors].

Justice Mini Pushkarna on Tuesday sought the response of the YSR Congress Party leader and his wife on the application filed by Eenadu's publisher, Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited.

Eenadu also filed an application alleging that Reddy filed false translation of the Telugu articles to mislead the Court and fabricate a case against Eenadu.

On that application, the Court directed Eenadu to file translations of the said articles.

The defamation suit was filed last year, seeking takedown of allegedly defamatory articles published by various newspaper outlets in connection with the Tirupathi laddu row of 2024.

In November 2024, Telugu Desam Party leader and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu alleged that animal fat had been used to make Tirupati laddus under the previous Congress government. leading to controversy.

Articles published by Eenadu and other media houses allegedly accused YSR of wrongdoing in connection with the procurement of ghee for these Tirupathi laddus.

In his suit before the Delhi High Court, YSR sought the takedown of such allegedly defamatory articles and as well as damages of ₹10 crores from various media houses

Eenadu (Ushodaya Enterprises) is one of the several media houses arrayed as defendants to this suit. Eenadu has now questioned whether this case can be heard in Delhi.

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Ushodaya Enterprises/ Eenadu, on Tuesday argued that since his client does not publish articles in Delhi, the cause of action does not arise in Delhi.

"I am raising the issue of non-maintainability. There is no cause of action. Just because he (YSR) is a member of parliament, who comes in winters, attends parliament, he cannot have a cause of action here. I have no circulation here." 

Advocate Saurav Agarwal joined in contending that the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain YSR's defamation suit.

"I have raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction. All the publications are in Andhra Pradesh, the registered office is in Andhra Pradesh, he (YSR) is a resident of Andhra Pradesh," he said.

Appearing for YSR, Senior Advocate Samrat Nigam countered that the defamatory articles are published online, making them accessible everywhere, including Delhi.

"It has been circulated in Delhi, read in Delhi, I have been put questions in parliament in Delhi. They continue to take time, make applications on the verge of hearing only so that the matter is not heard," he argued.

The Court proceeded to issue notice on the application. The matter will be heard next on April 15.

A connected application by Eenadu sought the rejection of a plaint filed by YSR's wife in the matter.

A third one sought the appointment of an official translator to translate the allegedly defamatory Telugu articles published by Eenadu.

According to this plea, YSR relied on false and fabricated translation of the articles to create a case against Eenadu.

"That the incorrect translations have been intentionally prepared to create prejudice against the Defendants and to misrepresent the contents of the original publications. The translations placed on record are neither faithful nor literal translations and omit crucial portions which materially alter the sense and context of the original text," it was contended.

YSR's counsel, Senior Advocate Nigam opposed this application on concerns that calling for the appointment of an official translator may cause unnecessary delays.

He submitted that if Ushodaya Enterprises/ Eenadu is not agreeable with the translations filed already by YSR, then the media house can itself file its own translated copies of the articles.

"May I make a suggestion to save time? Translation may make time. They (Eenadu) are the authors of the articles. Let them file translations, I will agree with them. It is their article, their publication, why don't they file the translations?" he submitted.

Accordingly, the Court directed that Ushodaya Enterprises is at liberty to file translated copies of the articles.

"Liberty is granted to defendant no. 1 [Ushodaya] to file translated copies of the documents. Let the needful be done in two weeks. Application is disposed of," the Court said.

Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi and advocates Saurav Aggarwal, Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Arpit Goel and Deepak Jain appeared for Eenadu.