Justice AA Nakkiran noted that the DMK meeting was conducted in-camera, meaning only party members were allowed to attend, while the press was permitted inside only at the beginning and end of the meeting. The judge criticized the magazine for publishing the report without proper verification.
![[Defamation Case Against Rahul Gandhi] Madras HC Directs Publishers of Junior Vikatan to Pay Rs.25 Lakh Compensation to DMK Leader T.R. Baalu](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Rahul-gandhi-1.webp?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
Madras: The Madras High Court directed the Tamil magazine Junior Vikatan to pay Rs 25 lakh as compensation to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader TR Baalu. The Court found that the magazine had published defamatory and false news against him without verifying facts.
The ruling was passed by Justice AA Nakkiran on February 4, 2025.
The case was related to an article published in Junior Vikatan in December 2013. The article claimed that TR Baalu had called Congress leader Rahul Gandhi a “small boy” during a closed-door DMK meeting. The Court observed that the magazine had no proof to support this claim.
Justice AA Nakkiran noted that the DMK meeting was conducted in-camera, meaning only party members were allowed to attend, while the press was permitted inside only at the beginning and end of the meeting. The judge criticized the magazine for publishing the report without proper verification.
“The report has been prepared on the basis of personal knowledge and information gathered from other source without verifying the reports whether it is truth or not,” the Court stated, concluding that the article was defamatory.
The Court emphasized that while the media has the freedom to report news, it must ensure accuracy and avoid publishing unverified allegations.
ALSO READ: Rahul Gandhi Granted Bail in Savarkar Defamation Case by Pune Court
“In the event of enjoying the freedom of press, they have all the liberty to publish the news to bring out to the people with the solid proof and they should not tarnish the image and reputation of a person without verifying the veracity of the news and confirming the same,”
the judge remarked.
Since Junior Vikatan is a well-known magazine with a large readership, the Court said it should have been more careful before publishing such claims.
“They (Junior Vikatan’s editor, printer and publisher) cannot take the privilege to tarnish the image and reputation of the Plaintiff (Baalu) amongst the minds of the public while the plaintiff held in various posts,”
the Court stated.
Baalu had initially sought Rs 1 crore in damages from Junior Vikatan over multiple defamatory articles. One such report was published on March 28, 2012, where the magazine, under the guise of answering a reader’s question, alleged that Baalu had unfairly benefited from the Sethu Samuthiram project. Baalu, who was the Union Minister for Shipping, Road Transport, and Highways in 2005 when the project was launched, denied these allegations and stated that the project was stalled due to pending court cases.
Baalu issued a legal warning to Junior Vikatan, but despite this, the magazine published another defamatory article on December 22, 2013. This time, it falsely accused Baalu of calling Rahul Gandhi a “small child” and questioning his leadership at a DMK meeting. Baalu denied making such a statement and said the magazine had damaged his reputation.
In his defamation suit filed in 2014, Baalu argued that under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, every person has the right to live with dignity. He also stated that while he was a public figure, his family members were private individuals who should not be subjected to defamatory content.
He requested the Court to issue an order stopping Junior Vikatan from publishing or circulating any defamatory content about him or his family.
The editor, publisher, and printer of Junior Vikatan denied any intention to defame Baalu. They argued that:
- The defamation case regarding the March 2012 article was invalid because it was time-barred.
- Baalu failed to prove that the December 2013 article harmed his reputation.
- Several other newspapers and magazines had published the same news.
After reviewing the arguments, the Court ruled that the 2013 article was defamatory and malicious. The Court noted that Junior Vikatan’s own witness admitted that the article was based on sources, but no verification was conducted.
The Court directed Junior Vikatan’s editor, printer, and publisher to pay Rs 25 lakh as damages to TR Baalu within a month.
However, the Court agreed with Junior Vikatan’s argument that the defamation claim for the March 2012 article was time-barred and could not be pursued.
The Court also rejected Baalu’s request for a permanent injunction preventing Junior Vikatan from publishing any future articles about him.
“The plaintiff cannot seek for permanent injunction for the future publications regarding the subject matter in the present suit,”
the Court ruled.
Senior Advocate P Wilson represented TR Baalu in the case, while Advocate N Ramesh appeared for the defendants.
