Madras High Court
Inigo Irudayaraj vs Paul Robin on 26 August, 2020
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
O.A.No.196 of 2019
in C.S.No.155 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 17.03.2019
Pronounced on : 26.08.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
O.A.No.196 of 2019
in C.S.No.155 of 2019
C.S.No.155 of 2019:
Inigo Irudayaraj ...Plaintiff
-Vs.-
1.Paul Robin
2.Elsiyus Pernando
3.Patrick Felix ...Defendants
O.A.No.196 of 2019:
Inigo Irudayaraj ...Applicant/Plaintiff
-Vs.-
1.Paul Robin
2.Elsiyus Pernando
3.Patrick Felix ...Respondents/Defendants
Prayer in C.S.No.155 of 2019: Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Madras High
Court Original Side Rules seeking for a direction to direct the defendants
jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff a sum Rs.1,01,00,000/- together
1/25
http://www.judis.nic.in
O.A.No.196 of 2019
in C.S.No.155 of 2019
with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of Plaint till
realization, for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1
to 3, their men, agents, staffs subordinates or whomsoever representing on
Defendants' behalf, from in any way posting defamatory messages,
statement, carecature, photographs affecting the reputations of the plaintiff
either in the Face book pages of the defendants 1 to 3 or in any social
media or in any social platform against the plaintiff and also for a direction
to the defendants to pay the costs.
Prayer in O.A.No.196 of 2019: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8
of the Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the
respondents/defendants 2 to 3, their men, agents, staff, subordinates or
whomsoever representing on their behalf from in any way posting any
adverse remarks, defamatory messages, statements, caricature,
photographs relating to the Plaintiff/applicant in the Facebook pages of the
respondents/defendants or in any other social media or social platform
against the plaintiff damaging the plaintiff's reputation and image, directly
or indirectly till the disposal of the suit.
For Applicant : Mr.Richardson Wilson
for M/s.P. Wilson Associates
For Respondents : Mr.P.T. Perumal
for R1 and R2
Ms.Mario Johnson for R3
(Vakalat returned)
2/25
http://www.judis.nic.in
O.A.No.196 of 2019
in C.S.No.155 of 2019
ORDER
The above application is filed by the plaintiff seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 3, their men, agents, staff, subordinates or whomsoever representing on their behalf from posting any adverse remarks, defamatory messages, statements, caricature, photographs relating to the applicant in the Facebook pages of the respondents or in any other social media or social platforms whereby damaging the applicant's reputation directly or indirectly till the disposal of the suit. The contentions in the application are by and large a repetition of the contents of the Plaint.
The facts which have culminated in filing of the suit by the applicant is hereinbelow extracted:
2.The applicant would contend that he is a Post Graduate from Loyola College at Chennai. He would contend that he was originally a businessman, running a business under the name and style of “TAIG Fashion Profiles Private Limited”. The applicant would contend that he is 3/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 an Income-tax Assessee and a law abiding citizen. He would also contend that he is a prominent person in his locality not only on account of his business but also on account of his social work and that he has a voice amongst the members of the Christian Community. The applicant would contend that not only does he carry a reputation among the clergy but also the laity.
3.The applicant would further contend that with the aim of forming a Forum to address the grievance and to help the unprivileged Christian Community, he had formed a Trust called “Christua Nallenna Iyakkam” hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “CNI”. This Trust was formed in the year 2010 in which the applicant was both the Author as well as the Founder. The objects of this Trust was predominantly to spread the word of the Christ and handhold the under privileged of the community and to protect their rights besides having other objects. Apart from the above Trust, the applicant has also floated an Association in the same name as that of the trust in the year 2016. This Association were registered under the Societies Registration Act and it is the case of the 4/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 applicant that upon its formation, it is the society that has been extending the same help as the Trust. The applicant would also state that he has rubbed shoulders with prominent political personalities.
4.The applicant would contend that the Christmas celebrations are normally conducted every year and so also in the year 2014. The 1st defendant who is one of the organizer in the society was jealous of the growing popularity of the applicant. This jealousy therefore prompted the 1st defendant to join hands with other friends to open Facebook accounts in which messages defaming the applicant were put up. The messages were highly defamatory and false. The applicant would contend that he is known by the moniker INIGO and the respondents have put up Face book posts referring to the applicant by expanding the moniker of the applicant into the vernacular as ,dp eP nghfyhk ;/ now you may go. According to the applicant, by using these words and posting the defamatory messages, the respondents were defaming the applicant as the person reading the same is able to relate the said post to the applicant. The applicant would further submit that the respondents in all their posts referred to the sale of 5/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 the land belonging to the Diocese at Defence Colony Road Cross Street, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai by stating that the property has been purchased paying a paltry sum and that the lands belonging to the believers have been swindled by the applicant with the active connivance of the clergymen. By reason of this defendants' defamatory posts the plaintiff has come forward with the suit and pending the suit has come forward with the instant application for grant of an ad-interim injunction.
5.A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. In the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent would contend that the Archdiocese of Madras Mylapore was entrusted with a lot of properties situated in Chennai, Chenglepet and Kancheepuram Districts.
Originally, the administration and management came under the direct control of the Archdiocese of Madras Mylapore, over a period of time, however, for better administration, the Archdiocese of Madras Mylapore transferred the management and administration of these properties to the Diocese of Chengalpattu. The Diocese of Chengalpattu was a separate society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The 2nd respondent 6/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 would contend that the very transfer itself was questionable as there are no documents evidencing the transfer. By reason of this bifurcation the immovable properties worth several thousand crores situated in the Southern part of Chennai, Chengalpattu and Kancheepuram district were brought under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Chengalpattu. The respondent would further contend that there is no transparency in the dealings / activities of the members of the Archdiocese of Madras Mylapore and the Diocese of Chengalpattu. The applicant would further contend that upon the formation of the Diocese of Chengalpattu several properties belonging to the Archdiocese of Madras Mylapore was sold.
6.In the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent had set out the details of various questionable transactions that had taken place. The respondent would also submit that the representation to the Clergy, the Revenue Department, Police Department and the Local Administrative Bodies did not yield the desired results since they appeared to be hand in glove with the members of the clergy.
7/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019
7.The 2nd respondent would contend that they had started making the posts in the social media only to bring to the notice of the general public, the fraud that has been committed whereby valuable properties of the Church was being sold away for a paltry sum by some of the clergy members, as a result of which, the Church has been deprived of its properties. The 2nd respondent has categorically stated that he has sufficient proof to prove the statements made on the social media sites.
8.The 3rd respondent has also more or less put forward the same contentions as contended by the 2nd respondent.
9.The respondents have spelt out that the applicant had not made out any case for the grant of injunction either by pleading prima facie case or that he would suffer irreparable loss and that the balance of convenience was on his side for the grant of an order of injunction. 8/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019
10.Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned counsel for the applicant would draw the attention of this Court to several posts made by the respondents herein which carries the English translation. He would draw the attention of this Court to the post made on 18th June by the 3rd respondent on the Face book page Christian Warrior Voice, wherein he would submit that the purchase of the property by the applicant has been described as “Church Land Looting Menace”. He would also draw the attention of this Court to the posts made on 15.05.2017 where once again the sale in favour of the plaintiff has been highlighted. In the post, the 3rd respondent has also stated that the applicant could be asked to come and bless a newly constructed toilet for a paltry sum.
11.The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the said posts are false and considering the standing of the applicant in Society, these messages are causing great harm mentally to the applicant/plaintiff. 9/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019
12.The learned counsel would rely upon the following Judgments:
1. AIR 1995 SCC 264 [R. Rajagopal and another v, State of Tamil Nadu and others
2. 2003(8) SCC 861 [State of Bihar v. L.K.Advani]
3. 2012 (132) DRJ (Supp) 468 [Rajan Bihari Lal Raheja and others v. Planman Consulting India Private Limited]
4. AIR 1961 AP 190 [K.V. Ramamaniah v. Special Pubic Prosecutor]
5. 2014 207 DLT 221 [Swatanter Kumar v. Indian Express Limited]
6. AIR 1988 Kant 255 [Sonakka Gopala Gowda and others v. U.R.Ananthamurthy]
7. 1989 (1) SCC 494 at Page 232 [Kiran Bedi vs Committee Of Inquiry]
8. 2012(3) MWN (Civil) 171at Paras 76, 77
13.Per contra, Mr.P.T. Perumal, arguing on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondent would contend that even according to the plaintiff he is a public figure and therefore liable to public audit. The learned counsel would submit that as and when some fraudulent transfer/activity on the part of public personalities are noticed, it is well open to the vigilant public to bring such activity to the notice of the public at large and there 10/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 cannot be a blanket injunction whereby a fetter is placed on the general public coming to know about the illegal activity being undertaken by such persons. The learned counsel would further argue that the respondents have not made any false allegations and that they have only brought the true facts to the notice of the laity and each and everyone of these statements can be only proved at the time of trial and therefore, there cannot be a blanket order of injunction. He would rely upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.Menaka & Co., and others v. M/s.Arappor Iyakkam rep. by its Convener, Jayaram Venkatesan and another in A.No.1663 of 2019 in C.S.No.163 of 2019, etc., batch.
14.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the material available on record.
15.The application for an ad-interim injunction has been filed on the ground that defamatory statements have been made against the applicant and by reason of these messages and social media posts the reputation of the applicant who is a well known public figure has been eroded. The 11/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 applicant has extracted the social media posts in his affidavit filed in support of the instant petition. The English version is hereinbelow reproduced for morefully appreciating the grievance of the applicant. In the English version is made by the 3rd respondent on 18th June the title of the post is as follows:
“Can't we discuss or create awareness regarding our Christian Church properties? ” ARE THEY CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS?
Some people tried hard in the private message to stop these face book recordings at any cost. The following are the above people questions and the relevant answer in the open message.
“.....
Comment 4: Why are you not questioning other major issues in Christianity???
Reply 4 : We raise questions only when there is a substantial evidence in hand. As far as the “Church Land Looting Menace” is concerned, there are several strong evidence and facts which we have unearthed and that's the 12/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 reason we talk on the issue of Ki w n f l h f ifkhw p a jp U r ; r i g epy';fs ; ” . If you have such similar evidence on other major issues mentioned by you, why don't you raise your voice for the same???
Comment 5: Why are you raising the issue now??? Reply 5 : It is only now we have unearthed several major strong evidences and facts.
Comment 6: What is the hidden agenda???
Reply 6 : We don't think that you ask such a question if you are a true Christian. Instead of a hidden agenda, WE HAVE AN OPEN AGENDA to safeguard out Christian Churches, its properties and religious values of our Christianity.
Comment 7: I strongly suspece this is floated by some disgruntled insiders who don't want to discuss in appropriate forum in the Church but delighted to wash their dirty linen in public.
Reply 7 : At the outset we thank you for accepting the 13/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 fact that “THERE ARE DIRTY LINENS” Who said that we don't want to discuss in appropriate forum in the Church??? In fact, there were several legal and official communication initiated by many dedicated Christians, whereas the respective Church authorities are remaining tight lipped regarding the same. We don't know how far it would be practically possible to recover the Church lands which are dubiously and inappropriately alienated and that is the basis reason we are creating an awareness in this regard which would ultimately give passive pressure on respective Church authorities to initiate the land recovery proceedings. Comment 8 : Careful.. Careful.. with thse unscrupulous elements...!!! Reply 8 : We Christians need to remain Careful.. Careful.. only with those who are trying to hide the Church Land Looting Menace (vjw; F j ; j h d ; c';fSf ; F ,e;j gjw ; w n k h ...?) Comment 9: When the Church is under the grips of 14/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 communalism, casteism and regionalism, this group is worried about lands?
Reply 9 : Rth ; ,U e ; j j h y ; j h n d rpj;j p u k ; tiua K o a [ k ; . ,nj Rangey jp U r ; r i g epy';fs ; Ki w n f l h f ifkhw p d h y ;/ ,d; D k ; rpw p J fhy mstpy ; ekJ fpw p ! ; jt njthy';fs ; ,Uf ; F k h vd; g J nghy nfs;tpf ; F w p a h f p t p L k ; . vy;ny h U k ; vy;y h gpur ; r i d f S f ; F k ; nghu h l fsj;jp d p y ; ,w'; F t J ,ayhj fhhp ak ;. “One Step at a Time” is out approach. v';fshy ; ,ad; w tp H p g ; g [ z h ; t p i d eh';fs; V w ; g L j ; J f p d ; n w h k ; . eP';f S k ; c';fshy ; ,ad; w nritfis fpw p ! ; j tj ; j p w ; F bra; a y h n k... ! Yet another post has been made by the 3rd respondent on the very same date which reads as follows:
“The Former Arch Bishop had resorted to sell the lease out the Diocese properties to his relatives and friends with selfish motives and also amassed so many crores of rupees. In this process the broker who was living in a rented house had become a very rich and prosperous person. The Arch Bishop has also built bungalows in the East Coast Road at Chennai. He is supplying all items including groceries to the former 15/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 Arch Bishop as a token of his gratitude. He is telling to invite INIGO it anybody is inviting him for any function. He should come only on that condition. He is ascertaining himself as the sole Kazhagam. He is also recommending to give the election ticket.
If some people give Rs.5000/- (or) Rs.10,000/- then INIGO Irudayaraj would even bless the toilet of the above people's houses. He is doing the diocese work with such indecent comments.
The land measuring an area of 1500 sq.ft. in which the present Christian Goodwill Society building is situated in the defence Colony near Saint Thoma Mount was also given on written lease by the former Chengalpattu Diocese property convener/reverend father on 99 years lease. This is not a story but a real fact.
The Chengalpattu Diocese District administration has been controlled by the above person. It is involved in highlighting him, in the act of grouping persons in his support and also administration is obedient to him.
The Bishop of the Diocese District and the Administration should given the proper explanation to the people immediately. We also request 16/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 to take urgent action on war footing to retrive all the Diocese properties.” The same post has been once again uploaded on 18th June. On 04th November, the 2nd respondent has put up a post in which the following statements have been made:
“... Do you know how it is registered??? The reverent father who is protecting th Diocese properties, had registered the land area 3018 sq.ft. + the building with 3 floors in an area of 1362 sq.ft. on lease to the person named “Now you can go” or “INIGO” at the cheapest rate of Rs.250/- as monthly rent for 66 years. (The said building was not mentioned in the account of the document is the specialty of the issue) This is called the scientific theft. The bare truth is that the persons who gave the property on lease will not be alive after 66 years, naturally. In the end of the lands belonging to the poor Christians would become the property of the person who proclaims himself as the savior of the poour Christian people and also named as “Now you can go” “INIGO” and his heirs.
At the time, when the Chengalpattu Diocese was bifurcated the Chennai Diocese gave the permission only to safeguard and maintain the 17/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 properties so as to help the poor people. No registration was done in any of the Registrar Offices. In such circumstances, the Chengalpattu Bishop behaves as if he is the owner of all the properties. The power agent fathers/priests who were appointed by the Bishop are acting as if they are empowered to do the land frauds. They have carried out this Himalayan Fraud.
Catholic People! Only one fraud has been put on spot light and shown to you just like one boiled rice in an example for one full pot of rice. The remaining land frauds pertaining to the many more lands belonging to the Diocese which are spread over OMR, Tthaiyur, Kelambakkam, Irumbuliyur, Valarpuram, Kovalam and other lands near Saint Thomas Mount will come at only one with proper evidence. The tail of the name inside the bush hold has been snatched. Further the name is to be pulled out next. When the name's head appears whether the snake is to be crushed and burnt (or) to be buried??? Poor Catholic people have to decide about what to do. We will be traveling with you in the field work to improve your life with determination forever.” The post is once again repeated on 5th November.
18/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019
16.The 1st respondent has also made a post on 7th November, wherein the 1st respondent has made a reference to the sale of the Church building worth RS.4 crores and the lease of land on a monthly lease of Rs.250/- for 66 years. The 1st respondent had stated that the lands belonging to the Christian Diocese and which are meant for the benefit of the members of the Christian Community have been transferred to a few rich people in a scandalous and irrational methods.
17.A conjoint reading of these posts would show that these posts seek to expose the then Arch Bishop who has sold the properties. The applicant is not named and even the moniker has been expanded only into the vernacular. Therefore, the issue is contentious and has to be proved through evidence. A prima facie reading of the various Face book posts would indicate that the person uploading the posts, namely the respondents herein are only seeking to alert the laity about certain dealing relating to the properties of the Church which according to them are not above board. The applicant being a public figure, his activities are definitely open to the 19/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 pubic audit. He cannot seek to have a blanket injunction restraining the persons from highlighting the activities which prima facie show that there is “something more than meets the eye”. By gagging responsible members of the Society from questioning illegal activities the applicant and the other members of the Church cannot continue their questionable activities.
18.That apart, the allegations are primarily only as against the Bishop and two reverend fathers. As regards the applicant he has been roped in only in his capacity as a lessee / purchaser. In the Judgment of this Court MANU/TN/2339/2018 [Kanimozhi Karunanidhi and others v. Thiru P. Varadharajan], the learned Judge of this Court has extensively dealt with the power/duty of this Court when called upon to balance the two rights viz., the Right to Privacy and the Right to Freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The right of the privacy by reason of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy's case, has acquired a new dimension to constitutional rights. In fact, in the Judgment in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy's case, the learned Judge has also referred to the report of the group of 20/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 experts on privacy headed by Hon'ble Mr, Justice A.P. SHAH, former Chief Justice of this Court, wherein the question of balancing the right of privacy with the right of free speech has been adverted to. The report sets out the exceptions to the Right to Privacy as the following: (1)National Security (2)Public Order (3)Disclosure in public interest (4)Prevention detection investigation and prosecution of criminal offences and (5)Protection of the Freedom from others. The learned Judge has extensively extracted from the Judgment in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy's case and held as follows:
“42. In balancing the two rights viz. the Right to Privacy and the Right to Freedom of Speech, the element of public interest is always based as a touch stone. The fact, as to whether, the former husband of the applicant is or was the owner of an estate near the location, where the fire accident happened recently may be of some interest to the public, but definitely cannot be said to be in public interest. Similarly, there are several other articles published by the respondents, which suggest strained relationship between her and her 21/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 brother (who also happens to be a prominent politician), some talk of her relationship between her and a Police Officer, some attributing certain motives in her meeting with a Union Minister and certain cartoons and caricatures, which refer to the detention of the applicant etc. Of course, the veracity of those statements made in those articles or the question as to whether they are defamatory in nature or not will have to be decided only after trial, but at the same time the respondents, in my considered opinion, cannot be allowed to go on publishing articles, which do not relate to the public life of the applicant, as a member of the parliament or as a leader of the political party or as a daughter of the former Chief Minister or as a sister of the former Deputy Chief Minister. ”
19.As observed balancing the two rights i.e., the Right to Privacy and the Right to Freedom of Speech, should be based on the touchstone of pubic interest. The right to Freedom of Speech cannot be an intrusion into 22/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 the privacy of the subject matter of the publication. In the instant case, the publication does not in any manner touch upon the private details of either the applicant or the persons connected with the sale. The respondents have only sought to highlight the case that the sale has been taken place is contrary to the known canons of law and is a statement which is rebuttable.
20.As held in the Judgment of Menaka and Co., once the respondents have raised the defence of justification and have also produced materials which prima facie show that the publications made are not entirely false then the applicants cannot plead balance of convenience for the grant of injunction. In the instant case also a substantial defence has been put up by the respondents.
21.In view of the above, I am of the view that the applicant has not made out a prima facie case for the grant of injunction and the balance of 23/25 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.No.196 of 2019 in C.S.No.155 of 2019 convenience is also not in their favour.
In the result, this Original Application is dismissed.
26.08.2020
Internet : Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Speaking / Non-Speaking
mps
P.T. ASHA. J,
mps
24/25
http://www.judis.nic.in
O.A.No.196 of 2019
in C.S.No.155 of 2019
Pre-Delivery Order in
O.A.No.196 of 2019
in C.S.No.155 of 2019
26.08.2020
25/25
http://www.judis.nic.in