Opening:
In a recent legal development, former health minister and senior AIADMK leader, C Vijayabaskar, secured a significant victory as the Madras High Court imposed a substantial fine of Rs.1.13 crore in a defamation case against a woman identified as Sharmila from Kerala. Vijayabaskar initiated the case, alleging that Sharmila had disseminated false accusations against him. The court’s verdict not only acknowledged Vijayabaskar’s notable contributions during the epidemic but also emphasized the imperative of safeguarding the reputations of public leaders from baseless slander.
Context:
In his application to the Madras High Court, Vijayabaskar claimed that Sharmila had falsely accused him of being involved in a scam involving the fraudulent activities of a gold corporation. He furiously denied having any relationship with Sharmila and asserted that her accusations were intended to jeopardize his professional standing. The former minister emphasized that after an exhaustive inquiry and discovery that Sharmila’s charge against the Tirunelveli police was untrue, the case was closed.
Legal Proceeding in Madras High Court:
Vijayabaskar personally appeared before the court during the proceedings, and the decision was announced on November 10 by Justice Sathish Kumar. The judge complimented Vijayabaskar’s efforts as a minister and condemned Sharmila’s attempt to smear a person of high standing in society. Sharmila was fined Rs.1.13 crore by the court for propagating derogatory statements and was ordered to refund Vijayabaskar’s legal fees.
Limitations on Broadcasting in Defamation Case:
The court made a significant decision when it issued an order prohibiting news surrounding the case from being published in newspapers or other media. It specifically ordered that any postings and messages on the issue on social media sites like Facebook and YouTube be taken down right away. This action demonstrates the court’s dedication to protecting public people’s reputations from unfounded and destructive allegations.
Sharmila’s Background:
Sharmila’s troubles go beyond the slander suit. A jeweler in Kerala filed a complaint against her in 2016, stating that she took gold worth 2.5 crores and refused to pay. During the investigation, Sharmila claimed to have worked as a middleman in a gold acquisition agreement for Vijayabaskar. However, following the recording of his statement, the Enforcement Directorate discovered no link between the then-minister and the case.
Political Vendetta Claims:
The judicial battle between Vijayabaskar and Sharmila is taking place in the context of a complaint filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing against Vijayabaskar for suspected ownership of disproportionate assets worth Rs. 27.22 crore. The AIADMK has decried these moves, accusing them of being part of the DMK government’s political vengeance against party members. Vijayabaskar is the fourth former AIADMK minister to be accused of corruption.
Investigation and Allegations:
Following the filing of the FIR against Vijayabaskar, searches were conducted in 48 locations across seven districts in Tamil Nadu, including establishments associated with his relatives and colleagues. The FIR accuses intentional enrichment and disproportionate assets from April 1, 2016, to March 31, 2021. Ramya, the former minister’s wife, is also charged in the case for allegedly aiding and abetting her husband.
AIADMK’s Response:
The inquiries and the case were slammed by AIADMK leaders O Panneerselvam and K Palaniswami as a political vengeance by the DMK government. They emphasized the AIADMK’s tenacity and dedication to its objectives in the face of legal difficulties. The AIADMK’s legal wing claimed that the case against Vijayabaskar lacked merit and vowed to fight it in court.
Summartion:
The imposition of a 1.13 crore penalty in the defamation case against Sharmila by the Madras High Court highlights the importance of protecting prominent personalities’ reputations. While the judicial struggle is still ongoing, the court’s orders on media coverage and social media posts set a precedent for ethical reporting and speech. As ongoing judicial fights rage in Tamil Nadu, the AIADMK remains steadfast in its opposition to what it sees as a politically driven effort by the incumbent DMK government. Further developments in both the defamation lawsuit and the claims of excessive assets against the former health minister are expected in the subsequent days.
