The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a personal complaint against YouTuber Maridhas, filed after she uploaded a video related to the anti-CAA ‘Kolam’ protest.
Justice GR Swaminathan dismissed the personal complaint against Maridas on the file of Judicial Magistrate III, Thoothukudi. The complaint under section 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code was filed by SRS Umri Shankar, a DMK functionary from Thoothukudi district.
The complainant said that Maridas has maligned the DMK’s image in the video. Maridas, however, denied the allegations and said that cases were registered against him deliberately to silence him for being vocal on YouTube about social issues.
The judge said there was nothing on record to show that the DMK had authorized the complainant to file a complaint. The complainant had not filed it on behalf of DMK but in his personal capacity.
In such a situation, the petitioner did not target the members of DMK. The mention of DMK people in the video is not defamatory in itself. What appears to be defamatory is only with reference to the party. The question is whether a member can file a defamation complaint when a political party alone is defamed.
The offense of defamation is not like any other IPC offence. Section 199 of the CrPC provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offense except on a complaint made by a person aggrieved by the offence. The expression of an aggrieved person includes a third party other than the person explicitly defamed. But, the expression aggrieved by a party cannot be construed too broadly, the judge said.
If a recognized political party has been defamed, a complaint made by a high-ranking functionary like the President or Secretary of the party will certainly be maintainable. The judge said that where the party alone has been defamed in contrast with the people of the party, others who are not at the helm of affairs cannot hold a complaint as they would not be the aggrieved person.
No charges have been leveled against the DMK party workers. There is no legal injury to the complainant. His reputation has not been tarnished in any way. The party was not authorized to file the complaint. Since he is not the aggrieved person, continuing with the proceedings would amount to an abuse of legal process, the judge said and dismissed the private complaint.