Madras High Court quashes defamation case against YouTuber Maridhas

The Madras High Court recently quashed a defamation complaint filed against YouTuber Maridhas, while noting that the complainant was not an "aggrieved person" [Maridhas vs SRS Umari Shankar]..On finding that the complainant was not authorised to file the complaint on behalf of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench held,"The complainant has not suffered any legal injury. His reputation has not in any way been lowered. The Party has not authorised the filing of the complaint. If the partymen or the members of DMK had been defamed, then as a member of a definite class of people, the respondent could have maintained the complaint. Such is not the case here. The complainant on his own has filed the complaint. Since he is not a person aggrieved, continuation of the impugned proceedings will amount to an abuse of legal process.".The complainant, who claimed to be a member of the DMK, had filed a case against Maridhas over a YouTube video released on January 3 last year, in which the latter allegedly made defamatory remarks against DMK members. The magistrate took cognisance of the private complaint filed under Section 500 (punishment for defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and summons were issued. Maridhas then approached the High Court with a petition to quash the order of the magistrate. .Before the High Court, counsel for Maridhas contended that the complaint was not maintainable. However, counsel for the complainant argued that all the essential ingredients of the offence of defamation were present in this case, and that Maridhas could not claim any of the defences under Section 499 IPC..After hearing the parties, the Court highlighted that Maridhas had targeted lawyer Gayathri Kanthadai and the DMK in his video. However,"Admittedly, the complaint was filed neither by DMK nor by Ms.Gayathri Kanthadai. The respondent has filed it in his individual capacity and not on behalf of DMK. The respondent herein claims to be a member and also an office bearer of DMK. There is nothing on record to show that DMK had authorised the complainant to file the impugned complaint," the Court noted.It cited precedents to conclude that just as a company was a separate entity apart from its shareholders, a recognized political party is also a separate person apart from its members..The question before the Court was when a political party alone is defamed, whether any member can file a complaint for defamation. While answering this question, the Court referred to Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which provides that no court shall take cognizance of the offence of defamation except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.Noting that the complainant did not suffer any legal injury, the Court held that he could not be construed as a person aggrieved by the alleged offence. The order stated,"If a recognized political party has been defamed, a complaint by a high ranking functionary like the President or Secretary of the Party would definitely be maintainable in the light of the aforesaid decision. Where the Party alone in contra distinction with partymen has been defamed, others not at the helm of affairs cannot maintain a complaint as they would not be persons aggrieved.".Further, the High Court held that its decision in Tamilisai Soundararajan v. Dhadi K Karthikeyan, in which it held that if a party does not give authorisation to a member to file a complaint on its behalf, the member cannot invoke Section 500 of the IPC, is “squarely applicable to the case on hand"..On these grounds, among others, the case against Maridhas was quashed..Advocate Anantha Padmanabhan appeared for Maridhas, while advocate P Malini represented the complainant..[Read order]