Chennai: The Madras high court has stayed the proceedings against DMK President M.K.Stalin, pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, Chengalpattu, for his alleged derogatory remarks against Chief Minister Edapadi K.Palaniswami.
Passing interim orders on a petition filed by M.K.Stalin, which sought to quash the defamation proceedings, Justice N.Anand Venkatesh also dispensed with his personal appearance before the PSJ, Kancheepuram, pending disposal of his petition.
According to senior counsel N.R.Elango, the complainant stated the petitioner allegedly made defamatory statement while participating in a marriage function held at Sholinganallur in Kancheepuram on January 20, 2019. The extract of his speech was published in a Tamil daily on January 21, 2019. The home department issued an order, dated February 12, 2019, where the Governor accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under section 499 IPC and authorized District Public Prosecutor to file a complaint. Accordingly, the District Public Prosecutor, Kancheepuram filed a complaint and the PSJ,
Kancheepuram took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the petitioner requiring him to appear before the court on July 5, 2019. Even if the petitioner was responsible, such a statement was not a statement “in respect of his (Chief Minister) conduct in the discharge of his public function”, as required under section 199 (2) Cr.P.C. Moreover, the Special court for trial of criminal cases related to elected MPs and MLAs, Chennai, alone has jurisdiction to inquire into or try the petitioner as he was a member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, he added.
Vehemently opposing the plea, State Public Prosecutor A.Natarajan submitted that the petitioner in his speech mentioned as Chief Minister Edapadi Palaniswami and again and again he says Chief Minister, which means Chief Minister is a public servant. As an elected member he is discharging his public duty. When Edapadi Palaniswami had committed certain act in his individual capacity, it is different. But, when the word Chief Minister is mentioned, it means the petitioner is making allegation against the chief minister while he was discharging his duty. Therefore, District public prosecutor can file the defamation complaint on behalf of the Chief Minister, he added.
Stating that he would take up all the defamation cases filed by the City Public Prosecutor and District Public Prosecutors and pending before the high court, hear both sides and decide one way or the other, the judge posted to August 8, further hearing of the case.
