DMK President MK Stalin has filed a defamation suit against Tamil magazine Vikatan over an article published on May 8, alleging that he had financial dealings with ‘Lottery King’ Martin Santiago, who is currently under the Income Tax department’s scanner. In a plaint to the Madras High Court, Stalin termed the allegations as ‘fictitious’ and demanded Rs 1,10,00,000 (Rs 1.1 crore) as compensation for damaging his reputation.
The Vikatan article, which appeared in the print and online version, is titled – ‘500 crores election fund? Martin is caught …DMK in trouble’. It alleges that Martin was very close to the ‘Karunanidhi family’ including Stalin, with whom he is reportedly still in touch with. The story states that the businessman is the DMK’s main source of money and that Martin had given the party Rs 500 crore for expenses during the recent elections. It further alleges that Martin also funds the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and that he even organised a rally in Kolkata in which TMC chief Mamata Banerjee and MK Stalin participated.
The article further has pictures of Stalin and his son Udhayanidhi attending Martin’s daughter’s wedding. A photo of Stalin’s son-in-law Sabareesan with Martin also appeared in the magazine’s cover, according to the plaint filed by the DMK. The author has commented that the recent raids on Martin’s properties in May was an effort by the Central Government to keep a check on funds disseminated to the DMK and TMC.
The two parties have vociferously opposed the Narendra Modi government.
“Contents of the offending article relating to Plaintiff are false and frivolous, and that there is not an iota of truth in the article, only with the sole intention of defaming, denigrating and damaging the reputation and image of Plaintiff in the eyes of the general public, party cadres and other party leaders,” alleges the plaint, a copy of which is in TNM’s possession.
Stalin further denies that Martin is a ‘friend’ and dismisses reports that he was close to Karunanidhi’s family. Most importantly, he has stated that the businessman did not donate money to the DMK.
“The Plaintiff denies the allegation that the DMK party has received a huge amount as “donation” for the General Elections to the Parliament and the bye-elections to 22 Assembly constituencies in Tamil Nadu. The Plaintiff also denies the allegation that Rs. 500 crores has been received by the DMK party from Mr. Martin,” states the document submitted to the High Court. “The audit certificate issued by the Auditor of DMK party dated 04.06.4019 and which is filed as Plaint document attests to this fact. Hence, it is shown by impeachable documents that the said Mr. Martin has never donated to the DMK party,” he argues.
Terming the meeting of opposition parties in Kolkata ahead of the elections as a political milestone, Stalin stated that Martin had no role to play in this meeting.
“The Plaintiff states that the offending article is not an exercise of free speech or freedom of press. It is not grounded in journalistic ethics and has not followed first principles to verify the veracity of the article being published,” reads the plaint.
“There has to be at least some basis for a publication which tends to lower the reputation of a person. The Defendants have not given any such basis in their article and the article has been printed and published without even a basic verification of facts. The views of the Plaintiff were not sought prior to publication,” it adds.
Stalin further says that since the publication of the story, he has been forced to explain his stand to political leaders and supporters.
“…. after the publication of the offending article, several leaders of other political parties from across India, leaders of the DMK party, several members of the DMK party and members of the general public called and enquired from the Plaintiff about the offending articles. The said offending article tends to defame, scandalise, lower and tarnish the Plaintiff’s image and reputation and that of the DMK party,” he alleges.
While the DMK President initially demanded Rs 100 crore as compensation for the ‘mental agony’ and ‘sufferance’, but brought it down to Rs 1,10,00,000, because it will ‘destroy the defendants’ company’. He has further asked for an unconditional public apology and for the article to be retracted in the next edition of the magazine and from the website, along with an apology and a notice.
Source: The News Minute