Madras High Court quashes criminal defamation case against former TN CMs EK Palaniswami, O Panneerselvam

The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed a defamation case against two former Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu, Edappadi K Palaniswami and O Panneerselvam [Edappadi K Palaniswami v Va Pugazhendi]..Justice M Nirmal Kumar delivered the judgment in a plea by the accused seeking quashing of the case filed by expelled spokesperson of All India Anna Dravida Muneetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), Va PugazhendiThe dispute arose from the wording of the expulsion letter issued after the petitioners announced that the respondent was removed from his post as spokesperson and expelled him from primary membership of the party..The respondent took exception to the letter directing party cadres to not have any contact with him.Further, he submitted that neither was he issued a show cause notice nor was an enquiry held to substantiate and prove the charges against him.He filed a defamation case against the two former CMs.The trial court issued summons to the two accused on finding grounds to proceed against them.They then moved the High Court seeking quashing of the case. .The High Court found that there was no material or reason to proceed against the petitioners since the answer to the petitioner’s grievance did not lie in a defamation case. Therefore, it was found that his remedy lay elsewhere.“The respondent's primary grievance appears to be that the petitioners not followed the rules and regulations of the party, not issued any show cause notice calling for explanation, failed to follow the principles of natural justice and expelled the respondent from the primary membership of the party without any valid reason, for this grievance his remedy and answer lies elsewhere and not by filing a defamation case,” the Court said..The respondent argued before the Court that his expulsion was 'breaking news' in India and abroad due to which his “name and fame” had suffered.The respondent also submitted that the baseless charges in the expulsion notice damaged the growth of his political career.It was his stand that the petitioners could not blindly expel a member or office bearer from the party’s primary membership without affording them an opportunity to give an explanation on the allegations levelled..The petitioners, on the other hand, informed the Court that Rule 35(xii) of the bye laws empowered them to take immediate disciplinary action to remove or suspend any primary member or office bearers of the party.It was their submission that after the AIADMK party recently lost power, the conduct of the respondent had changed and he started acting against the party’s interests.This caused damage to the name of the party, the petitioners said and therefore, they were left with no other alternative but to exercise their responsibilities as per the bye-laws and remove the respondent..Further, they contended that a grievance in relation to removal could be agitated by the respondent in the manner known to law however, it could not be the subject matter of a criminal complaint for defamation..On hearing both the parties, the Court examined previous expulsion letters issued by AIADMK in other cases and found that all of them were identical.“This Court finds that the wordings in the expulsion notice is a routine one which is verbatim repeated for years,” the Court said..Further it was found that the petitioners being coordinator and joint coordinator had lawful authority to take disciplinary action against all members of the party.Therefore, the petitions were allowed and the case was quashed..Senior Advocates A Natarajan and Vijay Narayan along with advocates K Gowthamkuma and C Thirumaran appeared for the petitioners. The respondent was represented by Advocates NGR Prasad and R Thirumoorthy.[Read Judgment]