Trial by trial for alleged slander of the chief minister, according to the Madras High Court

Rejecting the two defamation suits against former minister (AIADMK) CV Shanmugam, the Madras High Court on Wednesday found prima facie reasons for discrediting Chief Minister MK Stalin and ordered him to stand trial. But two additional defamation claims against him were dismissed by the court.

The Villupuram district public prosecutor filed the defamation suits in the Villupuram court. Judge N Anand Venkatesh issued the rulings in response to Shanmugam’s applications.

The judge declined to overturn two cases pertaining to his remarks against the chief minister and the government regarding the Tiruppur migrant workers’ issue, the proposed order that required workers to work 12-hour shifts but was later withdrawn, and allegations of embezzlement through the illegal sale of alcohol.

“Therefore, when such a serious situation is directly attributed against the government, it is not only defamatory but also attributable or connected with the discharge of public functions of the CM,” the court remarked in reference to remarks made about migrant workers. He is publicly disparaged by the law and order issue that is leveled against the administration led by the chief minister. The petitioner is free to provide all of his defense in this complaint.

Judge Anand Venkatesh ordered Shanmugam to stand trial in the matter pertaining to offensive statements that referred to the administration as the “420 government” since he could see no justification for becoming involved.

He dismissed the other two defamation complaints, meanwhile, since the former minister had said that the government was worried about the center’s reaction and that the drug problem was not being adequately controlled.

During the debates, government representative attorney general PS Raman argued that Shanmugam’s remarks were scandalous and defamatory since they were made in response to the chief minister while he was doing his official duties.

In support of Shanmugam, senior attorney Vijay Narayan said that bringing these lawsuits was the same as silencing the opposition.

The court ruled that the opposition ought to hold the government responsible to the people. It offers safeguards to ensure that democracy runs smoothly. Thus, it is necessary to make sure that those who oppose are not silenced and are not stopped from raising issues by making them face criminal prosecutions.

He did, however, warn that although expressing dissent, vituperative outbursts should be avoided since they may be seen as defamatory and result in the administration being maligned.

In a developed democracy, it is anticipated that the opposition would voice its opinions in a way that does not go too far and turn into defamatory speech.Rejecting the two defamation suits against former minister (AIADMK) CV Shanmugam, the Madras High Court on Wednesday found prima facie reasons for discrediting Chief Minister MK Stalin and ordered him to stand trial. But two additional defamation claims against him were dismissed by the court.

The Villupuram district public prosecutor filed the defamation suits in the Villupuram court. Judge N Anand Venkatesh issued the rulings in response to Shanmugam’s applications.

The judge declined to overturn two cases pertaining to his remarks against the chief minister and the government regarding the Tiruppur migrant workers’ issue, the proposed order that required workers to work 12-hour shifts but was later withdrawn, and allegations of embezzlement through the illegal sale of alcohol.

“Therefore, when such a serious situation is directly attributed against the government, it is not only defamatory but also attributable or connected with the discharge of public functions of the CM,” the court remarked in reference to remarks made about migrant workers. He is publicly disparaged by the law and order issue that is leveled against the administration led by the chief minister. The petitioner is free to provide all of his defense in this complaint.

Judge Anand Venkatesh ordered Shanmugam to stand trial in the matter pertaining to offensive statements that referred to the administration as the “420 government” since he could see no justification for becoming involved.

He dismissed the other two defamation complaints, meanwhile, since the former minister had said that the government was worried about the center’s reaction and that the drug problem was not being adequately controlled.

During the debates, government representative attorney general PS Raman argued that Shanmugam’s remarks were scandalous and defamatory since they were made in response to the chief minister while he was doing his official duties.

In support of Shanmugam, senior attorney Vijay Narayan said that bringing these lawsuits was the same as silencing the opposition.

The court ruled that the opposition ought to hold the government responsible to the people. It offers safeguards to ensure that democracy runs smoothly. Thus, it is necessary to make sure that those who oppose are not silenced and are not stopped from raising issues by making them face criminal prosecutions.

He did, however, warn that although expressing dissent, vituperative outbursts should be avoided since they may be seen as defamatory and result in the administration being maligned.

In a developed democracy, it is anticipated that the opposition would voice its opinions in a way that does not go too far and turn into defamatory speech.