Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court

Freedom of Expression Does Not License Defamation: Madras High Court Awards Rs. 50 Lakhs for Defamatory YouTube Video

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Judicature at Madras, presided over by Justice N. Sathish Kumar, addressed the contentious issue of defamation via social media platforms. The case (C.S. No. 60 of 2021) dealt with a civil suit filed by Seva Bharathi, Tamil Nadu, against Surendar @ Naathikan for defamatory statements made on YouTube, implicating the plaintiff in a murder case and alleging a conspiracy against the Christian community. The Court emphasized the responsibility that accompanies the freedom of expression, particularly on social media, and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding a substantial sum for damages and granting a permanent injunction against the defendant.

The judgment predominantly hinged on the interpretation of defamation in the context of social media, balancing it against the right to freedom of expression. The Court scrutinized the allegations made by the defendant against Seva Bharathi, assessing the reputational damage and the legal limits of free speech in the digital era.

Seva Bharathi, a charitable trust known for its social work, filed a suit against Surendar, who had uploaded a video on YouTube under the banner 'Karuppar Desam'. In this video, the defendant made serious allegations against the plaintiff, linking them to a controversial murder and suggesting a motive to eliminate Christianity. The plaintiff contended these allegations were baseless and defamatory, seeking damages and an injunction against further defamatory posts.

The Court meticulously evaluated the evidence, including witness testimonies and exhibits (Ex.P1 to Ex.P9). The defendant's absence and failure to counter the allegations were noted. Justice N. Sathish Kumar criticized the misuse of social media for defamation, stating, "Merely, under the pretext of freedom of expression, one cannot make an interview intruding the privacy of others." The Court recognized the need to discourage such blackmailing tactics used on social media platforms.

The suit was decreed in favor of Seva Bharathi. The Court ordered the defendant to pay Rs. 50,00,000 as damages for the reputational harm caused. Additionally, a permanent injunction was granted, preventing the defendant from making any further defamatory posts against the plaintiff. The Court underscored the importance of not allowing social media to become a tool for baseless character assassination.

Date of Decision: 6.03.2024.

Seva Bharathi, Tamil Nadu v. Surendar @ Naathikan

Similar News