Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay 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

Latest Legal News