DMK youth wing secretary and Tamil Nadu Minister for Sports and Youth Welfare Udhayanidhi Stalin on Monday told the Madras High Court that he had issued a statement linking AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami with the 2017 Kodanad estate heist-cum-murder case only on the basis of media reports.
In a counter affidavit to an application filed by Mr. Palaniswami to restrain the Minister from making such defamatory allegations, Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin invoked the defence of justification and said, he made the alleged defamatory statements by believing them to be true on account of numerous media reports.
“The role of the applicant and his connection to the Kodanad murder-robbery case has been widely reported, deliberated and discussed in a myriad of news articles and has been part of public discourse. Consequently, it cannot be said that the applicant is not even remotely connected with the case,” the counter read.
It went on to state: “It is apparent that there are tangible resources connecting the applicant with the Kodanad murder-robbery case and the statements made by the respondent are on that strength, constituting reasonable verification in line with the standards prescribed by this honourable court as well as the Supreme Court.”
Denying the charge of malice and claiming that the statements were made with a bona fide intention, the Minister contended it would entitle him to the protection against issuance of a blanket gag order restraining him from making any fair comment about the police investigation into the crime.
“I submit that such a blanket gag order in the form of an interim injunction would have a chilling effect and directly affect the right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,” the counter affidavit filed by the Minister through his counsel on record S. Manuraj, read.
Pointing out that Mr. Palaniswami was the Chief Minister when the crime took place at the summer abode of former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa in 2017, Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin said his statements were related to Mr. Palaniswami’s performance as a public servant and made purely in public interest.
Further, highlighting that the applicant had actually taken exception only to a part of the written statement shared by him on social media platform X, the Minister said the statement was primarily aimed at condemning the manipulation of his speech on Sanatana Dharma by the Bharatiya Janata Party.
“It is trite in law that any speech alleged to be defamatory ought to be viewed and read in its entirety and portions thereof cannot be taken out of context,” he said and stated that Mr. Palaniswami had not lodged any complaint with X before instituting a defamation suit along with the present application for interim injunction till the disposal of the suit.
Justice N. Sathishkumar on Monday accepted a request made by advocate K. Gowtham Kumar, representing Mr. Palaniswami, to grant him some time for responding to the counter affidavit and adjourned the hearing to February 26. The judge also extended till then the injunction already granted, for a limited period, against the Minister.
