Madras High Court Upholds Defamation Ruling Against Sun TV
In a landmark decision, the Madras High Court has affirmed a civil court’s directive for Sun TV to compensate actress R Sukanya with over ₹10 lakh. This ruling concludes a three-decade-long legal battle concerning defamatory remarks aired in 1996. The comments were made by the notorious bandit Veerappan, and the case, [Sun TV Vs Sukanya], reached its resolution with Justice K Kumaresh Babu dismissing Sun TV’s appeal. The appeal challenged a 2015 Chennai court verdict that held the broadcaster accountable for not verifying the interview’s content.
Sun TV’s Editorial Responsibility Highlighted
Justice Babu emphasized that Sun TV had editorial oversight, as per its agreement with interviewer Rajagopal. The channel had the prerogative to edit or modify the interview, and thus bore the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of its content before airing it. “Having reserved the right to edit, cut, delete, or modify, alter and add any portion with an unrestricted right, it is the duty that is enjoined upon the appellant to verify the contents of the interview before its publication,” Justice Babu stated. Sun TV’s failure to verify Veerappan’s claims against Sukanya was a crucial factor in the court’s decision.
The Original Broadcast and Subsequent Legal Actions
The contentious interview aired on April 17, 1996, with Veerappan alleging a relationship between Sukanya and the son of former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao. He also suggested that a video of them was used by the then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa to negotiate with Congress during the 1996 elections. Sukanya refuted these allegations, deeming them false and defamatory, and filed a lawsuit seeking ₹1 crore in damages, which she later adjusted to ₹10,00,500.
Trial Court and Appeal Decisions
On April 15, 2015, the trial court ordered Sun TV to pay the reduced amount and barred both the channel and Rajagopal from republishing the defamatory statements. Sun TV contested this ruling, arguing that it was not responsible for originating the claims and had not rebroadcast the interview post-notification. The channel also cited a published regret in a Tamil magazine as evidence of its remorse.
High Court’s Dismissal of Sun TV’s Appeal
The High Court found Sun TV’s actions insufficient, noting that a broadcasted apology would have better served to mitigate the damage among its viewers, as opposed to the printed regret in a third-party magazine. The Court ruled that this strategy displayed malice, as the magazine did not have the same reach as Sun TV’s audience. Furthermore, the Court dismissed Sun TV’s argument that Sukanya had failed to demonstrate reputational damage, upholding the trial court’s decision.
More Read
Advocates R Palaniandavan, Perumpulavil Radhakrishnan, and PT Perumal represented Sun TV, Sukanya, and Rajagopal, respectively. The judgment reaffirms the necessity for broadcasters to exercise due diligence in verifying content before publication.
