The Supreme Court recently finished defamation proceedings against Indian Union Minister L Murugan over comments he made back in 2020. Murugan claimed that the Murasoli Trust, linked to the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party in Tamil Nadu, was using land without permission.
Justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan decided to close the case after Murugan stated he did not intend to hurt the trust or its members. He explained that his remarks were made while serving as a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is in the Opposition in Tamil Nadu.
The Murasoli Trust, which operates a newspaper and a news channel and includes Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin as one of its managers, accepted Murugan’s explanation. The court praised the trust’s willingness to move on and ended the criminal case against Murugan.
Murugan sought help from the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court rejected his request to dismiss the case in September 2023. This politician and former BJP state president had made the contested comments during a press conference in 2020.
Murugan’s lawyer, K Parmeshwar, said that when Murugan was vice-chairman of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, he received complaints that the Murasoli Trust’s building was on land meant for Scheduled Castes (SC) in Tamil Nadu. Parmeshwar insisted that Murugan’s comments were not meant to damage the trust’s reputation and were made while he held a political position.
The Supreme Court had advised the trust to consider Murugan’s clarification. Senior advocates for the trust said they were okay with accepting his explanation and didn’t want to press on with the case anymore. They suggested that Murugan publish his clarification in newspapers as a sign of goodwill.
The defamation case began in 2021 when DMK leader RS Bharathi accused Murugan of suggesting that the trust was operating illegally. Bharathi noted that the trust had been at the same location for over 35 years and had never had issues regarding its property rights.
Earlier, the Madras High Court did not rule in Murugan’s favor, arguing that the statements made should be evaluated considering a regular person’s understanding of them. The court mentioned that even if Murugan felt he had not spoken against the trust, his remarks could still cause people to question the trust’s property rights.
Murugan defended himself by saying he was protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which supports freedom of speech. The High Court indicated that a thorough examination of the facts was necessary during the trial while urging the special court to speed up the process.
Leave a Reply