Madras High Court quashes two of four defamation cases against C Ve Shunmugham for comments on CM MK Stalin

The Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed proceedings in two of the four defamation cases pending against Member of Parliament and AIADMK member C Ve Shunmugham for his comments against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin..Justice N Anand Venkatesh held that the opposition must criticise the government in “temperate language” and avoid “vituperative” outbursts.The Court quashed two of the four Government Orders (GOs) passed by the DMK government according sanction to the Public Prosecutor for making complaints under Section 199 (prosecution for defamation of public servant) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Also quashed were the complaints filed before the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram on which summons was issued to Shunmugham..Appearing for Shunmugham, Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan argued that the GOs granting sanction had been issued without due application of mind. He lso said that as a responsible member of the opposition, Shunmugham had merely criticized the government for its lapses and that did not amount to defamation..Advocate General PS Raman, on the other hand, submitted that Shunmugham’s comments were directed against the Chief Minister and were “highly scandalous and defamatory.”.Justice Venkatesh went through the contents of the alleged defamatory statements in all four cases and the details of the corresponding GOs..The two cases in which the Court quashed the proceedings related to comments made last year by Shunmugham against the DMK government and the Chief Minister. He had expressed “general dissatisfaction” with the DMK government and the CM’s inability to control the “drug menace” in the State.In these two cases, the Court held, these were general comments and even if presumed to be defamatory, they were not “directly attributable or connected with the discharge of public functions” of the Chief Minister. Hence, the proceedings in these two cases deserved to be quashed, the Court said..The Court however, held that in the remaining two matters, Shunmugham had made unverified remarks on Stalin’s conduct. Specific note was made of the allegations that the Chief Minister had “looted ₹5,000 crore from the State exchequer by running the bars and by sale of illicit arrack and brandy,” and Shunmugham’s allegations on Stalin having propagated the attack on migrant workers in the State following one such incident in Tirrupur district.It thus refused to quash the proceedings in these two cases..It said that while in a democracy, the opposition was entitled to criticize the government, it must be mindful of the language or the words used in the process.“While undertaking the above exercise, it must be borne in mind that such dissent and criticism should be made in a temperate language. In the name of voicing the opposition, vituperative outburst must be avoided since such scurrilous sharp tongue slanders may result in maligning the government and it can be construed as defamatory statements. How so ever noble is the intention behind making such statements, the offensive and opprobrious statements can side track the issue that has been raised and they will be construed more as defamatory statements,” the High Court said..Advocates M Mohamed Riyaz and KMD Muhilan assisted Narayan and AG Raman respectively..[Read Order]