While coming down most heavily raining on the most deplorable, despicable and dangerous growing trend in social media and you tubes to post defamatory posts, the Madras High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Seva Bharathi, Tamil Nadu vs Surendar @ Naathikan in C.S.No.60 of 2021 that was pronounced as recently as on March 6, 2024 has directed YouTuber Joe Surender alias Naathikan who is the anchor of YouTube channel Karuppar Koottam to pay Rs 50 lakh compensation to Seva Bharathi Tamil Nadu for a defamatory video. It must be revealed here that the YouTube had posted a video wherein it was falsely claimed that Seva Bharathi had a role in the custody death of two Christian men Jayaram and Bennix since it was linked to the RSS and had wished to “eradicate the Christian community”. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice N Sathish Kumar observed unsparingly that, “Merely, under the pretext of freedom of expression, one cannot make interview intruding the privacy of others, the Law does not give such absolute license to the Youtubers and the social media to spoil the reputation of others.” Very rightly so!
By all accounts, it has to be certainly conceded by one and all that a person or any institution builds its reputation after decades of toil and relentless hard work. But most alarmingly and most appallingly, it does not take even a few seconds to tarnish most severely within no time the hard earned reputation of anyone and this alone is enough to shed light on how powerful the YouTubes and social media has become in the last few years! It is definitely to reign in most strongly this growing gross abuse of social media and YouTubes that the Madras High Court in this refreshing judgment has stepped forward without wasting any time in awarding the most exemplary penalty of Rs 50 lakhs so that a very loud, clear and unequivocal message goes all across that those who take the reputation of others for granted will not be allowed to get away under any circumstances unpunished and unaccounted for under the law of the land! It is high time and we all now need to be most careful while posting anything against anyone without any definite proof to substantiate strongly our grave allegations against anyone because if we fail to exercise extreme caution in this regard, we would be ourselves responsible for landing ourselves in a most messy state of affairs in which we would never like ourselves to be in! Now the ball is in our court!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice N Sathish Kumar of Madras High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth clearly, concisely and categorically in para 1 that, “This suit has been filed for damages of Rs.1,00,01,000/- and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from posting any messages that are defamatory or in the nature of threat against the plaintiff and further for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to issue a public apology to the plaintiff in any national newspaper.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then while elaborating in detail on the facts of this leading case envisages in para 2 that, “The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is as follows: It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a charitable trust engaged in rendering yeoman service for the poor and needy belonging to all sections of the society. It runs various educational and other charitable institutions which provide education and relief to destitute women and the needy. The plaintiff has got a very good reputation in the society. When the matter stood thus, the defendant with a malafide intention telecasted a video in Youtube during the first week of July 2020 under the banner of Karuppar Desam, wherein, the defendant has made completely false, baseless and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff with regard to the alleged murder of two persons inside the police station. It is further stated and alleged in the video, as if, the plaintiff is supported by RSS and he may aim to eliminate the Christianity religion and therefore, the murder has took place and it is further alleged that the plaintiff had deliberately conspired and murdered Mr.Jayaraj and Mr.Bennix, because they belong to Christianity. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the statement and allegations made in the video, is, in fact, is nothing but incitement against the entire Christian community. The plaintiff was portrayed in a bad light in the eye of public. The statement has come up as if the plaintiff has conspired and murdered Mr.Jayaraj and Mr.Bennix, that too in the police custody. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming damages.”
Briefly stated, the Bench specifies in para 3 that, “Defendants remained ex parte, despite service of summons. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked.”
Needless to say, the Bench states in para 4 that, “Heard the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff and perused the records.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench while shedding light further on the nitty gritty of the case propounded in para 5 that, “P.W.1, in his evidence, has clearly spoken about the nature of the allegations pressed against the plaintiff by the defendant in the social media platform namely Youtube. To substantiate, Compact Disc along with 65B Certificate is also filed before this Court. The nature of the statement targeted against the plaintiff, published and telecasted in social media is not even denied by the defendant. The very conduct of the defendant remaining absent indicate that the allegations as against the defendant has not been traversed nor denied in the pleadings. Ex.P6 is filed to substantiate the allegations made against the plaintiff and were circulated in social media, particularly, when custodial murders of two persons happened and there was a public agitation about the particular incident. When the public were already agitating in respect of custodial death of two persons in police custody, circulating such false allegations without any semblance of truth and portraying the plaintiff in a bad light in the eye of public is nothing but clear case of defamation with a malafide intention. Further, portraying the plaintiff in the eye of public as if he is acting against one particular community is nothing but malicious statement which certainly tarnish the image of the plaintiff.”
Most significantly, we need to note here that what forms the real cornerstone of this notable judgment is then laid bare in para 6 propounding and directing succinctly that, “Such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is certainly entitled for claiming damages. Though the exact amount of damages in terms of monetary damages cannot be ascertained portraying the plaintiff in a bad light with allegations that their aim is only to eliminate the Christian community is nothing but serious allegations which not only causes damage to reputation but will have a serious impact in the very activity of the trust. Such view of the matter, though the nature of damages is immeasurable, considering the nature of the statement circulated in Youtube in the form of interview, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to monetary compensation for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- which shall be paid by the defendant.”
Most remarkably, what also cannot be lost sight of is that the Bench then also minces just no words absolutely to hold most unequivocally in para 7 that, “Merely, under the pretext of freedom of expression, one cannot make interview intruding the privacy of others, the Law does not give such absolute license to the Youtubers and the social media to spoil the reputation of others. Therefore, this Court cannot shut its eyes when such false allegations are circulated targeting innocent persons. Circulating statements nowadays used as a tool to black mail the people. These things cannot be encouraged, unless it is discouraged in the initial stage, there will not be an end and every black mailer may use the social media platform to blackmail others by spreading false and unnecessary news.”
Finally, the Bench then very rightly draws the curtains on this noteworthy judgment by holding and directing precisely in para 8 that, “Accordingly, the suit is decreed for damages of Rs.50 lakhs with costs as against the defendant and the same shall be paid within a period of one month failing which the suit amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% and further, a decree of permanent injunction is also granted as sought for by the plaintiff.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that it merits just no reiteration of any kind that the bottom-line of this most remarkable, recent, robust, refreshing and rational judgment that has been delivered so brilliantly by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice N Sathish Kumar of Madras High Court is that there will certainly no more be getting away easily or be given a long rope for those who intentionally post most defamatory posts in YouTube and social media without any reliable evidence to substantiate those serious allegations as we see in this leading case. There can be no gainsaying that this alone explains why such a very heavy amount of Rs 50 lakhs has been awarded as damages as has been explained hereinabove by the Madras High Court. No denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi