Madras High Court asks how is speaker’s speech on MLAs switching sides defamatory

The judge also stated that none of the MLAs, who were cited in the speech to have been willing to jump sides, had preferred the defamation and none had switched allegiance as well.
Assembly Speaker M Appavu
Assembly Speaker M Appavu(File photo | Express)
Updated on
2 min read

CHENNAI: The Madras HC questioned AIADMK spokesperson RM Babu Murugavel as to how a particular speech of Assembly Speaker M Appavu amounted to defamation and directed him to file a reply to the speaker’s petition seeking to quash the defamation suit.

Justice G Jayachandran raised the questions when the speaker’s petition praying for quashing the defamation suit and staying the proceedings pending before the special court for MP/MLAs came up for hearing.

The judge also stated that none of the MLAs, who were cited in the speech to have been willing to jump sides, had preferred the defamation and none had switched allegiance as well. He asked how the speech would therefore amount to defamation.

The defamation suit was filed against the speaker for his speech delivered at an event in 2023 stating that about 40 MLAs belonging to AIADMK were willing to switch sides after the death of J Jayalalithaa but the then Leader of Opposition MK Stalin did not approve of it.

Senior counsel P Wilson, appearing for the speaker, submitted that the speech does not amount to defamation of a political party; and even if it does, only the president or secretary of the party can initiate the defamation proceedings.

In fact, Murugavel did not even state that he was a member of the AIADMK during the time of Jayalalithaa’s demise, the counsel said and questioned the locus standi of Murugavel in filing the defamation suit. Directing him to file a reply to the petition by October 22, the judge posted the matter to the same date.

‘No MLA cited in the speech preferred defamation’

The judge said that none of the MLAs, who were cited in the speech to have been willing to jump sides, had preferred the defamation and none had switched allegiance as well. He asked how the speech would therefore amount to defamation.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com