The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the defamation case against Union Minister L Murugan is a significant development in the ongoing legal battle stemming from his 2020 remarks. The defamation suit had been filed by Murasoli Trust, a Chennai-based publication, following comments made by Murugan during a press conference in December 2020. In those statements, Murugan allegedly accused the Trust of actions that were damaging to its reputation.
The Murasoli Trust had initially filed a complaint in a Chennai special court, accusing Murugan of defamation. Murugan sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that his statements did not meet the threshold for defamation and were not intended to harm the Trust’s reputation. However, the Madras High Court had earlier dismissed Murugan’s petition to quash the case, allowing the defamation proceedings to move forward. The High Court noted that Murugan’s statements appeared to be defamatory and left it to the trial court to determine the validity of the allegations.
Undeterred, Murugan appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the case should be dismissed due to a lack of evidence and the absence of malicious intent. In a turn of events, the Murasoli Trust decided not to pursue the matter further, expressing that they would not prosecute the case. With the Trust’s decision to withdraw its support for the defamation case, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Murugan. It quashed the defamation proceedings, marking a significant victory for him.
The bench, led by Justices Gavai and Viswanathan, acknowledged the apology made by Murugan, who clarified that he never intended to defame or damage the reputation of Murasoli Trust. The Court also appreciated the Trust’s willingness to end the legal proceedings, signalling a gesture of reconciliation.
This ruling marks a significant legal victory for Murugan, and it brings an end to the legal uncertainty surrounding the defamation case. The decision reflects the Court’s careful consideration of both the legal arguments and the willingness of the parties involved to resolve the issue amicably. It also sets a precedent for similar defamation cases, particularly those involving public figures and media outlets.