Chennai, Feb 23 (UNI) The Madras High Court today dispensed with the personal appearance of Former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa in court over a defamation case.
Justice D Murugesan dispensed with her appearance before a lower court while ordering notice returnable by March one to the Public Department Secretary on a petition filed by Ms Jayalalithaa.
She sought to quash a Government Order (GO) granting sanction to prosecute her and authorising the City Public Prosecutor (CPP) to file a defamation complaint.
Originally, CPP M Shahjahan filed a defamation complaint against Ms Jayalalithaa for her alleged defamatory speech against Chief Minister M Karunanidhi over installation of MGR Statue in Parliament.
Principal Sessions Judge V Periakaruppiah, who took the complaint on file, ordered summons to Ms Jayalalithaa asking her to appear before the court on February 26.
Ms Jayalalithaa submitted that her statement dated November 22, 2006, referred to Mr Karunanidhi with respect to his individual capacity and not any of his public duties. The statement did not characterise or defame any of his public duties in respect of the issue contained in the statement.
On November 23, 2006, Mr Karunanidhi's advocate sent a notice asking her to withdraw it in seven days, failing which a legal action for defamation and damages would have been intiated against her. The notice was sent in his individual capacity.
On December 24, 2006, she sent a reply calling for details. Till then, everything remained purely at a personal legal correspondence level between Jayalalithaa and Mr Karunanidhi through his counsel.
By misusing his position as Chief Minister and unable to meet the questions raised in the reply, he had caused the PWD Secretary to sanction her prosecution. Based on the GO, the CPP filed the complaint, she alleged.
Ms Jayalalithaa contended if the prosecution was allowed to stand, it would lead to an impression that any comment on an individual, if he happened to be a public servant, would amount to defamation to be acted on under Section 199 of the CrPC. The said analogy was incorrect and not supported by any law, she added.
UNI
Justice D Murugesan dispensed with her appearance before a lower court while ordering notice returnable by March one to the Public Department Secretary on a petition filed by Ms Jayalalithaa.
She sought to quash a Government Order (GO) granting sanction to prosecute her and authorising the City Public Prosecutor (CPP) to file a defamation complaint.
Originally, CPP M Shahjahan filed a defamation complaint against Ms Jayalalithaa for her alleged defamatory speech against Chief Minister M Karunanidhi over installation of MGR Statue in Parliament.
Principal Sessions Judge V Periakaruppiah, who took the complaint on file, ordered summons to Ms Jayalalithaa asking her to appear before the court on February 26.
Ms Jayalalithaa submitted that her statement dated November 22, 2006, referred to Mr Karunanidhi with respect to his individual capacity and not any of his public duties. The statement did not characterise or defame any of his public duties in respect of the issue contained in the statement.
On November 23, 2006, Mr Karunanidhi's advocate sent a notice asking her to withdraw it in seven days, failing which a legal action for defamation and damages would have been intiated against her. The notice was sent in his individual capacity.
On December 24, 2006, she sent a reply calling for details. Till then, everything remained purely at a personal legal correspondence level between Jayalalithaa and Mr Karunanidhi through his counsel.
By misusing his position as Chief Minister and unable to meet the questions raised in the reply, he had caused the PWD Secretary to sanction her prosecution. Based on the GO, the CPP filed the complaint, she alleged.
Ms Jayalalithaa contended if the prosecution was allowed to stand, it would lead to an impression that any comment on an individual, if he happened to be a public servant, would amount to defamation to be acted on under Section 199 of the CrPC. The said analogy was incorrect and not supported by any law, she added.
UNI
Oneindia Login