SC Rejects AIADMK Leader's Plea Challenging Closure Of Defamation Case Against TN Speaker

In his complaint, Murugavel alleged that Appavu at a book release function in November 2023, defamed AIADMK by claiming 40 MLAs belonging to the party were ready to switch over to the DMK.

When the bench remained unimpressed, the counsel withdrew the plea and the matter was dismissed as withdrawn.

Source : https://www.sci.gov.in/

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a plea by AIADMK advocates wing joint secretary M Babu Murugavel challenging an order that quashed the defamation complaint against Tamil Nadu assembly speaker M Appavu. A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti refused to intervene in an order of the Madras High Court dated October 25, 2023, which quashed the complaint.

"We have an anti-defection law which shows that our democracy and legislature recognises such a phenomenon in the political system. You are saying as if something strange has happened. We have an anti-defection law precisely to deal with such things," it observed.

Murugavel alleged in his complaint that Appavu at a book release function in November, 2023, defamed the AIADMK by claiming 40 MLAs belonging to the party were ready to switch over to the DMK after the demise of its late leader J Jayalalithaa in December, 2016.

Senior advocate S Nagamuthu, appearing for Murugavel, submitted the alleged statement affected the reputation of the party.

When the bench remained unimpressed, the counsel withdrew the plea and the matter was dismissed as withdrawn.

It was alleged Appavu committed an offence under Sections 499 and 500 pertaining to defamation of the IPC through this speech.

Quashing the complaint, the high court said in the case, the alleged imputation of Appavu directed against 40 MLAs of AIADMK party, will not cover the complainant even remotely.

“If he claims that he carries the sword for his newly embraced party, he must have expressed authorisation to represent his party. Whereas, the complaint is in his capacity and not in the representative capacity,” the high court observed.

(This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Apart from the headline, no editing has been done in the copy by ABP Live.)