Chennai: Bringing a curtains-down end to a legal battle spanning three decades, the Madras High Court has sustained a lower court’s order directing Sun TV to pay upwards of ₹10 lakh in damages to actor R Sukanya. The defamation case originated from unverified, slanderous remarks made against her by the notorious forest bandit Veerappan during a televised broadcast in 1996.

Justice K Kumaresh Babu rejected the television network's appeal against a 2015 city civil court verdict, pointing out that the media giant failed fundamentally in its journalistic duty to authenticate the explosive claims before putting them on air.

 

Failure of editorial due diligence

The High Court emphasised that Sun TV made no attempt to secure a clarification from Sukanya, nor did it independently corroborate Veerappan’s statements. Crucially, the bench highlighted that the channel maintained total editorial sovereignty over the content. Under its commercial contract with the interviewer, Rajagopal (popularly known as 'Nakkheeran' Gopal), Sun TV possessed unrestricted rights to edit, alter, delete or modify any segment of the footage.

"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 to verify the contents of the interview before its publication," Justice Babu observed.


Origins of the 30-year dispute

The controversial interview was originally aired on April 17, 1996. During the broadcast, the sandalwood smuggler made wild, unsubstantiated allegations concerning a purported relationship between Sukanya and the son of former Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao. Veerappan further claimed that a video recording involving them was weaponised by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa to negotiate a political alliance with the Congress party ahead of the 1996 general elections.

Vehemently denying the allegations, Sukanya moved the court in 1996, stating that the broadcast had grievously tarnished her social standing and dignity among family, peers and the public. While she initially sought ₹1 crore in punitive damages, she later amended and capped her financial claim at ₹10,00,500.

On April 15, 2015, the trial court ruled in her favour, ordering the network to pay the requested sum and restraining both Sun TV and Rajagopal from ever republishing the defamatory broadcast.

 

Why the High Court rejected Sun TV's defense

Challenging the 2015 decree, Sun TV argued before the High Court that it could not be held liable as it was merely broadcasting an external interview and was not the original author of the statements. The broadcaster also noted that it halted all re-telecasts immediately upon receiving legal notice and pointed to an apology published in a regional Tamil magazine.

The High Court was unpersuaded by these defenses, particularly dismissing the magazine apology as inadequate. The bench ruled that for an expression of regret to mitigate damage, it needed to be broadcast on the channel's own platform to reach the same audience.

"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," the Court stated.

Brushing aside Sun TV's final assertion that the actor had failed to mathematically prove a loss of reputation, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's original judgment and formally dismissed the appeal.

In the proceedings, Advocate R Palaniandavan represented Sun TV, Advocate Perumpulavil Radhakrishnan argued for Sukanya, and Advocate P T Perumal appeared on behalf of Rajagopal.