“There is no error in the trial Court finding that the reputation of the appellant had been substantiated by her own evidence. The loss of reputation follows a defamatory or derogatory statement,” the Madras High Court said on June 5, upholding the trial court’s findings.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu said that this itself would show malice on the part of the Sun TV in only opting to give a regret in a third-party magazine, which was also not substantiated to have a wider reach than its viewers. (Image enhanced using AI)
Duty of channel to verify contents
- Having reserved the right to edit, cut, delete, or modify, alter, and add any portion with an unrestricted right, it is the duty that is enjoined upon the appellant (Sun TV) to verify the contents of the interview before its publication.
- The appellant has also not taken any diligent steps to verify the contents of the interview, either by seeking a clarification from the first respondent or making any investigation with other third parties before publishing the interview in his channel.
- If such a regret had been published in its own broadcast, it would have reached the very same viewer who would have viewed the publication it had made earlier.
- This itself would show malice on the part of the appellant in only opting to give a regret in a third-party magazine, which was also not substantiated to have a wider reach than its viewers.
- There is no explanation on the side of the appellant (the news channel) as to why the regret has not been published in its news channel, and only in a third-party Tamil daily.
- This court does not find any infirmity with the reasoning given by the trial court to fasten the liability to pay the compensation on the appellant.
- Having failed to discredit the chief examination of the PW1 (Sukamya) with regard to a claim of loss of reputation, the appellant cannot now be heard to say that the first respondent had failed to substantiate the loss of reputation.
Case traced back to 1996 Veerappan interview
The dispute arose from an episode of the Veerappan interview Nerukku Ner (“Face to Face”) telecast on Sun TV on April 17, 1996.
The programme featured an interview of Veerappan conducted by Nakkheeran editor R R Gopal.
According to Sukanya, Veerappan made false and defamatory allegations suggesting that she had an illicit relationship with the son of former Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao and that the alleged relationship had been videotaped and used for political bargaining ahead of the 1996 general elections.
The actress contended that the allegations by Veerappan were completely untrue and had caused serious harm to her dignity, reputation, and standing in society.
She claimed that the telecast of the Veerappan interview affected her professional prospects and caused her immense mental agony.
Although she alleged that her losses exceeded Rs 1 crore, she restricted her claim before the court to Rs 10,00,500.
Trial court held telecast was defamatory
After examining the evidence, the trial court concluded in April 2015 that the statements aired during the programme were defamatory and that both the broadcaster and the interviewer had failed to exercise due care before publication of the Veerappan interview.
The court found that Sun TV had the authority to edit the Veerappan interview before telecast and was therefore aware of the contents being broadcast. It held that the channel had nevertheless chosen to air the offending statements.
The trial court awarded Sukanya damages of Rs 10,00,500 and permanently restrained the defendants from publishing or telecasting the defamatory portions of the Veerappan interview.
Aggrieved by the decision, Sun TV approached the high court.
Sun TV argued it merely telecast interview
Sun TV argued before the Madras High Court that it was not responsible for the allegations because it had merely broadcast an interview of Veerappan recorded by Nakkheeran.
The channel contended that Sukanya had failed to establish actual loss of reputation and pointed out that she continued to act in films and television programmes after the telecast of the Veerappan interview.
It further argued that it had expressed regret through a publication in a Tamil magazine and had not re-telecast the programme after receiving objections.
High court rejects defence
The Madras High Court was not convinced by the broadcaster’s submissions.
Justice Kumaresh Babu observed that Sun TV‘s own admissions regarding Sukanya’s continued film career demonstrated her established reputation and standing in society.
The Madras High Court noted that the actress had specifically deposed that the telecast had affected her reputation and resulted in loss of opportunities. Importantly, those assertions were not effectively challenged during cross-examination.
Holding that the trial court had committed no error in accepting her evidence, the Madras High Court said the broadcaster could not later argue that the loss of reputation had not been proved.
Editorial control means responsibility
A key factor that weighed with the court was an agreement entered into between Sun TV and Nakkheeran for broadcasting the interview.
The agreement gave Sun TV unrestricted rights to edit, cut, delete, modify or add portions of the programme before telecast.
The Madras High Court held that once the broadcaster had reserved such extensive editorial powers, it could not avoid responsibility for the content that was eventually aired.
“It is the duty that is enjoined upon the appellant to verify the contents of the interview before its publication,” the Madras High Court observed.
The judge pointed out that Sun TV had not sought clarification from Sukanya, conducted any inquiry or otherwise attempted to verify the allegations before broadcasting them.
The Madras High Court further noted that the broadcaster had benefited commercially from the programme through advertisements aired during the telecast.
Court questions manner of apology
The Madras High Court also examined Sun TV’s reliance on a subsequent expression of regret.
The court observed that the broadcaster had chosen to publish its regret in a third-party Tamil magazine rather than on its own television platform.
The Madras High Court noted that if the regret had been aired through the same medium that carried the defamatory allegations, it would have reached the same audience that viewed the original programme.
The absence of any convincing explanation for this course of action weighed against the broadcaster, the Madras High Court said.
Appeal dismissed
Finding no infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the trial court, the Madras High Court dismissed Sun TV’s appeal and upheld the damages awarded to Sukanya.
The Madras High Court also allowed the permanent injunction restraining further publication or telecast of the defamatory portions of the interview to remain in force.
No order was passed as to costs.
Sun TV argued before the Madras High Court that it was not responsible for the allegations because it had merely broadcast an interview recorded by Nakkheeran. (File Image, enhanced using AI) 
Justice K Kumaresh Babu said that this itself would show malice on the part of the Sun TV in only opting to give a regret in a third-party magazine, which was also not substantiated to have a wider reach than its viewers. (Image enhanced using AI)
Share
