How can proxy file defamation on behalf of AIADMK, asks HC in case against Speaker Appavu

CHENNAI: Observing that a defamation case cannot be filed by a proxy, the Madras High Court served notice on AIADMK legal wing joint secretary RM Babu Murugavel for suing State Assembly Speaker M Appavu. The court wondered how he could file a defamation case on behalf of the AIADMK, alleging defamation of the opposition party's MLAs.

Justice G Jayachandran on Thursday observed that the alleged statement of the Speaker about MLAs (switching sides) was not in line with defaming the party. He also directed the petitioner to explain his locus standi behind filing the defamation case on behalf of the party.

The Speaker moved the petition seeking to quash the defamation petition filed by Babu Murugavel and the case is still pending before the special court for the cases related to MPs/MLAs.

Senior counsel P Wilson who appeared for the Speaker said that the alleged statement was made in 2016, but the petitioner joined the party in 2018. How then could he file the defamation petition, he asked.

The counsel appearing for Babu Murugavel submitted that he had moved the petition based on the authorisation given by the party. The alleged statement had defamed the party's reputation, he added.

But senior counsel Wison objected to the contention.

The judge then intervened and made it clear that a defamation case cannot be filed by giving authorisation. "There cannot be a proxy to file a defamation case," the judge said, stating that only the then 40 MLAs of the AIADMK or the party leader could move the petition.

The court posted the matter to October 22 for Babu Murugavel’s response to the questions raised.

Babu Murugavel in the defamation suit alleged that the present Speaker, in November 2023, had made a speech at an event stating that after the demise of late Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, more than 40 AIADMK MLAs were ready to join the DMK.

The petitioner said that the Speaker also claimed that a senior member of the AIADMK approached him to assist in the shifting of loyalties. He contended that these claims were fictitious, and made to defame the AIADMK.