Madras High Court: Nearly 30 years after actress R Sukanya moved court over a televised interview that she said damaged her reputation, the Madras High Court has upheld a Rs 10.01 lakh damages award against Sun TV, ruling that the broadcaster failed to verify and remove defamatory allegations made by forest brigand Veerappan despite having the power to edit the programme before it was aired.

Justice K Kumaresh Babu was hearing an appeal filed by Sun TV Network Limited against a 2015 decree passed by a Chennai trial court challenging the award of Rs 10,00,500 in damages and a permanent injunction granted in favour of the actress over the Veerappan interview.

“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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.