Madras High Court
V.Sudha @ Sudha Muralidharan vs Jana Vignanvedhika on 4 November, 2020
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
C.S.No.593 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 23.01.2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.11.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
C.S.No.593 of 2007
V.Sudha @ Sudha Muralidharan .. Plaintiff
.Vs.
1.Jana Vignanvedhika
Andhra Pradesh,
Reg.No.1276/88,
Vijayawada Committee,
Vijayawada.
2.Velaga Srinivas
3.TV9
Anovation Broadcasting Pvt.Ltd.,
No.97, Road No.3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,
Rep.by CH.U.Sathyanarayana
4.CH.U.Sathyanarayana
5.Eanadu,
Vijayawada Edition,
Vijayawada, Branch Office,
602, Annasalai,
Parsn Manner, Chennai – 6.
6.India Today,
Telugu Edition,
98-A, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai -4. .. Defendants
http://www.judis.nic.in1/24
C.S.No.593 of 2007
PRAYER : Civil suit filed praying for judgment and decree against the
defendant as follows:-
(a) Permitting the plaintiff to sue an indigent person;
(b) directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- as
damages for committing the said offence and
(c) to award cost and may such further or other orders or reliefs as
this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Plaintiff : Ms.M.V.Seshamma
For Defendants : Mr.K.Elango
for D1& D2
Mr.N.A.K.Sharma for D5
Mr.Sundar Mohan for D6
D4 set exparte
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has come up with the present civil suit for damages and for costs.
2. It is averred in the plaint as follows:-
(i) The plaintiff, after completion of graduation in Siddha Medicine at M.G.R.Medical University in the year of 1993, has been practicing as Siddha Doctor for the past five years. With an intention to expand the value of Siddha Medicine, she had proposed to conduct medical camps in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, she conducted a medical camp on 04.06.2004 at Hotel Swarna Palace, Vijayawada. At that time, the fourth http://www.judis.nic.in2/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 defendant, who is a reporter of a private channel T.V.9, entered into her room along with the second defendant and enquired about her medicines and treatment. In the meanwhile, about ten persons, who are introducing themselves as media persons, also entered into the room of the plaintiff and took photographs on different angles, without her permission.
(ii) While so, based on the complaint given by the defendants 1 and 2, the Sub Inspector of Police made an enquiry about her mode of treatment and validity of her relevant certificates. Subsequently, he took the plaintiff to Governorpet Police Station for enquiry and registered a case for the offence under Section 420 IPC against her. Thereafter, she had been taken to the Commissioner of Police on 05.06.2004, where she was directed to produce the necessary documents to prove herself that she is the registered Medical Practitioner.
(iii) It is further stated that the defendants 1 to 4 without adhering to the medical guidance or enquiry into Siddha Medicine, had unscrupulously made a false complaint and labelled the plaintiff as fake and fraudulent doctor. Further, the same was telecasted in T.V.9 and publications were also made in 'Eanadu', 'Vartha' and 'India Today'. According to the plaintiff, the said activities would defame her personal and professional interests and benefits. Hence, she instituted the present suit, besides filing a private http://www.judis.nic.in3/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai against the defendants for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.
3.Denying the averments made in the plaint, the first defendant filed a written statement, inter alia stating as follows:-
(i)The first defendant organisation was started in the year 1988 and has been registered as a Society under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act and they are conducting various awareness programmes such as female foeticide, gender equality, health, scientific education, patriotism, environment etc. In the month of June, 2004, a wall-poster campaign was carried out by the plaintiff in the city of Vijayawada, claiming herself to cure the chronic diseases viz., Diabetes, AIDS, Cancer, Infertility etc., without surgery through siddha medicines. After seeing the posters, the 2nd defendant met the plaintiff at her camp at Hotel Swarna Palace, Vijayawada and questioned the plaintiff as to how she claims herself to cure the above said diseases were curable. However, the plaintiff was giving evasive replies. Hence, the 2nd defendant lodged a complaint with the Governorpet Police Station, Vijayawada on behalf of the 1st defendant against the plaintiff.
http://www.judis.nic.in4/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007
(ii) It is further stated that the Society has always kept the interests of the organization in the forefront in conducting public awareness campaigns and they were never gave any interview to any one of the television channels or print media. Further, they did not have any motive to bring disrepute to the plaintiff except in denying her claims as stated in the wall-posters as false. The defendant has further stated that the entire exercise was made with an intention to make the public to be aware of the facts that the above mentioned chronic diseases are incurable.
(iii) The averment made in the plaint that the defendants labeled the plaintiff as a fake doctor, is false and they never questioned her academic medical qualifications. The defendant was not aware of the alleged private complaint given before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai against the defendants.
(iv) Further, the plaintiff has not come up with any specific pleas as to how this defendant had defamed her and the averments and allegations made by the plaintiff are very vague and are bereft of facts and hence devoid of merits. Hence, the suit is not maintainable, since it is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant. http://www.judis.nic.in5/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007
4. Denying the averments made in the plaint, the 5th and 6th defendants filed written statements, inter alia stating as follows:-
The alleged incident took place in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh and the news item was published in 'Eenadu' in the Vijayawada Edition and 'India Today' on its Telugu edition on 04.06.2004. The said publications were made only based on a factual report and the facts therein have also been admitted by the plaintiff. There is no libel as alleged by the plaintiff in the publications of the said news item. Further, there is no averment in the plaint that the said editions dated 04.06.2004 had been circulated in Chennai or read by any one in Chennai. Hence, the plaintiff has not suffered any injury or damage on account of the said publications. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit as against the defendants 5 and 6.
5. Based on the pleadings and documents filed by both parties and submission made by both the Counsel the following issues have been framed by this Court on 21.12.2010 :-
1. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, delay and latches ?
2. Whether the suit is maintainable for non-
joinder of necessary and proper parties ?
http://www.judis.nic.in6/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007
3. Whether the suit for defamation filed against the 5th defendant as such is maintainable?
4. Whether the suit for defamation filed against the defendants 1 and 2 as such is maintainable?
5. Whether the news item reported on 04.05.2004 in the news paper 'Eenadu' Vijayawada Edition based on an FIR registered with the concerned Police Station constitute the tort of defamation?
6. Whether the plaintiff is a recognised Siddha Medical Practitioner ?
7. Whether the acts of defendants 1 to 4 are defamatory?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages?
9. To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled ?"
6. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P.13 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D.18 were marked.
7. Issue No.1 7.1. According to the learned counsel for the defendants, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. Refuting the same, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and the suit has been filed within the period of limitation. http://www.judis.nic.in7/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 7.2. It is an admitted fact that the alleged occurrence is said to have occurred on 04.06.2004 and the suit has been filed on 14.07.2004. No doubt, as per Article 75 of the Limitation Act, period for filing a compensation suit in the case of libel is one year. In the case on hand, the legal notice was issued by the plaintiff to defendants 1 to 3 under Ex.P6, dated 30.06.2004 and under Ex.P7 dated 09.07.2004 to the fifth defendant and the suit has been filed on 14.07.2004 itself and the alleged occurrence took place on 04.06.2004. However, it is to be noted that the suit papers were returned to the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction on 25.11.2007, and the plaintiff has also represented the same and stated that already Leave to Sue was ordered in App.No.2714 of 2004 on 19.07.2004, and hence, the suit was taken on file in C.S.No.593 of 2007. The alleged occurrence took place on 04.06.2004 and the suit was filed in July 2004 itself and as such, the suit was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly that the suit is not barred by limitation.
8. Issue No.2 8.1. According to the learned counsel for the sixth defendant, sixth defendant-India Today is not a legal entity and it is the name of magazine run by M/s.Living Media India Ltd., which has its head Office at New Delhi and its Regional Office at Mylapore, Chennai and therefore, the suit is not maintainable as against the sixth defendant as it is not a legal entity. http://www.judis.nic.in8/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 8.2. Even though, the plaintiff has not added M/s.Living Media India Ltd., as a party, on the sole ground, the suit cannot be dismissed, as non- mentioning the name of the company. Therefore, the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, I hold that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary or proper parties. This issue is answered accordingly.
9. Issue No.6:
Ex.P1 is the certificate [Faculty in Siddha] issued by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, dated 20.03.1995. Ex.P2 is the provisional certificate, dated 08.02.1994, Ex.P3 is the certificate of internship, dated 13.09.1994 and Ex.P4 is the Registration Certificate, dated 30.03.2000. On a perusal of above Exs.P1 to P4, it could be seen that the plaintiff had completed Faculty in Siddha on 20.03.1995 and a certificate was issued by the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council, which was constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is also could be seen that the plaintiff had undergone National Conference on AIDS, organized by IMCOPS Ltd., Madras and a certificate was also issued, stating that the plaintiff had participated as a delegate in the National Conference on AIDS 1993, held at Madras on 25th and 26th June 1993, which was marked as Ex.P5. Therefore, from the http://www.judis.nic.in9/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 above it is clear that the plaintiff is a recognised Siddha Medical Practitioner and this issue is answered accordingly.
10. Issue Nos.3,4,5,7,8 and 9:-
10.1. According to the plaintiff, she is a graduate in Sidda Medicine at M.G.R.Medical University in the year 1993 and has been practicing as a Siddha Doctor. When the plaintiff had proposed to conduct medical camps in the State of Andhra Pradesh, on 04.06.2004, the fourth defendant, who is a reporter of a Private channel TV9 entered into her room along with the second defendant and enquired about her medicines and treatment. In the meanwhile, about 10 persons, who are introducing themselves as media persons, also entered into the room of the plaintiff and took photographs on different angles, without her permission. The Sub Inspector of Police, based on the complaint given by the defendants 1 and 2, conducted an enquiry about her mode of treatment and validity of her relevant certificates.
10.2. According to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 4 without adhering to the medical guidance or enquiry into Siddha Medicine, had made a false complaint and lablelled the plaintiff as a fake and fraudulent doctor and the same was telecasted in T.V.9 and publications were also made in 'Enadu', 'Vartha' and 'India Today' and the said activities would defame her personal and professional interest and benefits.
http://www.judis.nic.in10/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 10.3. The first defendant is a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act. The second defendant is the Treasurer of the first defendant-Society. The defendants 3 to 6 are the private news channels.
10.4. According to the first defendant, the first defendant organization was started in the year 1988 and they are conducting various awareness programmes such as female foeticide, gender equality, health, scientific education, patriotism, environment etc., During June 2004, a wall-poster campaign was carried out by the plaintiff in the City of Vijayawada, claiming herself to cure chronic diseases, viz., Diabetes, AIDS, Cancer, Infertility etc., without surgery through siddha medicines. After seeing the posters, the second defendant met the plaintiff at her camp at Hotel Swarna Palace, Vijayawada and questioned the plaintiff as to how she claims herself to cure the above said diseases were curable. Since the plaintiff was giving evasive replies, the second defendant lodged a complaint with the Governorpet Police Station, Vijayawada on behalf of the first defendant against the plaintiff.
10.5. According to the defendants 5 and 6, the alleged incident took place in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh and the news item was published in 'Eenadu' in the Vijayawada Edition and India Today on its Telugu edition on 05.06.2004. The said publications were made only based on a factual report http://www.judis.nic.in11/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 and the facts therein have also been admitted by the plaintiff. There is no libel as alleged by the plaintiff in the publications of the said news item.
10.6. According to the defendants, there is no proof to show that it was made with an intention to harm or with knowledge or reasonable belief that will harm the reputation of the plaintiff.
10.7. In the case on hand, it is to be seen that the second defendant made the following complaint against the plaintiff before the Inspector of Police on 04.06.2004:-
"One Mrs.Sudha Muralidharan from Tamil Nadu had stayed at Rood No.313, Hotel Swarnapalace, Governorpet and cheating public on the name of Siddha Medical treatment. She had publicized through wall posters that she can cure Asthma, Aids and other incurable diseases with her medicines without operation. It is known by you that earlier doctors, who attempted to cheat the public by stating that they can cure only by medicines for incurable diseases were arrested.
Therefore, I request you to take necessary action legally against Sudha Muralidharan for publicity she had given that she can cure such incurable diseases."
From the above complaint, it could be seen that there was no intention or harm to file a complaint against the plaintiff. In the complaint, it is stated that on an earlier occasion, the doctors who attempted to cheat the public by stating that they can cure only by medicines for incurable diseases were http://www.judis.nic.in12/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 arrested. Therefore, on the said impact, the second defendant filed a complaint against the plaintiff and there was no intention to harm or with knowledge or reasonable belief that will harm the reputation of the plaintiff.
10.8 Based on the above said complaint dated 04.06.2004, the Inspector of Police, registered a case and conducted an enquiry and filed final report on 26.11.2004, which reads as follows:-
"This is a case of alleged cheating that occurred prior to 04.06.2004 at Swarna Palace, Governorpet, Vijayawada and reported on 04.06.2004 at 22.00 hours in which the accused noted in the margin cheated the people of Vijayawada and thereby collecting money by saying that she would cure the AIDS and Asthma diseases with siddha medicines without conducting operation.
I registered the report of the complainant as a case in Crime No.101 of 2004 on 04.06.2004 at 22.00 hours and investigated into.
There is no fault on the part of the alleged accused she is medical graduate who completed medical course in Siddha in Tamil Nadu. Since two or three years she is visiting Vijayawada and other cities in AP and doing medical practice in Siddha. No adverse reports came against her.
The kind of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Division No.1, Issued orders to refer the case.
Today I referred this as Mistake of Fact. I request the http://www.judis.nic.in13/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 Hon'ble Court to treat this as such and issue proceedings accordingly. Complainant notice was served and was enclosed herein."
From the above, it could be seen that, the Inspector of Police, after enquiry, held that the plaintiff has completed medical course in siddha and she has been visiting Vijayawada and other cities in AP for more than two years and doing medical practice in Siddha and hence, referred the matter as mistake of fact.
10.9 To constitute a defamation under civil law, few conditions have to be satisfied:-
1) The statement made must be defamatory- Defamatory statement is one which tends to injure the reputation of the plaintiff. An imputation which exposes one to disgrace and humiliation, ridicule or contempt is defamatory.
2) The said statement must be referred to the plaintiff. It is immaterial that the defendant did not really intend to defame the plaintiff.
If the person whom the statement was published could infer that the statement referred to the plaintiff, the defendant is liable.
3) The statement must be published - Publication actually means making the defamatory matter known to some person other than the person defamed, and unless and until that is done no civil action for defamation http://www.judis.nic.in14/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 lies.
10.10 Since the points that arose for consideration in this suit are based on the publication effected by the defendants on 05.06.2004, it is relevant to extract the publication, which reads as follows:-
The publication effected on 05.06.2004 in Eenadu reads as follows:-
"Sudha's powdered medicine for AIDS There are the days when thousand of people are becoming victims to AIDS for which scientists are breaking their heads to find medicines, lakhs of people are leading their last minutes of life as patients of AIDS. "Why worried, come to me I shall cure it with a pack of powder she says, 'not only AIDS but also cancer, Asthma and other chronic diseases can be cured by medicine and I have cured many" says to believe her. To know what this is wonder and how far it is true view and verify these facts members of Janavigavedhika Media persons her place of stay at Swarna Palace at Governorpet on Friday night, enquired about medicinal values of her medicine. As she could not expect this questioned them how they have come inside without permission. TAAT; threatened them to give Police complaint why you are troubled about this thought the members and informed City Police Commissioner A.B. Venkateswara Rao immediately scene changed to Governorpet Police Station, now now she did not agitate and understood the situation she informed that her name is Sudha Muralidharan and had become experienced http://www.judis.nic.in15/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 by completing five and half years of medical course at Tamilnadu. To verify her statements whether it is true or not police are inquiring into the matter as well in the medicines. The packets of medicines as told by her may work in any manner, but, as there is no chance of curing AIDS by these medicines cheating case has been registered against her even before the entry of Janavignavedhika."
The publication effected on 05.06.2004 in India Today reads as follows:-
"With a pack of medicine I can cure life threatening disease like AIDS, Cancer, this was her propaganda colourful posters with the name of Sudha appeared in the surrounding villages. Do you have Aids, Cancer, Asthma whatever disease may be it may be cured immediately by the doctor who is going to visit Vijayawada come immediately and get treated for your disease this was the matter in the pamphlets and posters the publicity was made by her medicines many AIDS patients are cured and are living happily believing Dr.Sudha's publicity long queues formed in front of a famous Hotel at Vijayawada to know and verify these facts local Janavignanvedhika members visited her place where her mode of treatment was clearly visualized to every person who entered she gave a pack of medicine asking them to mix with honey and consume it for 15 days and you will become normal, and collected her fee at the sight of Janavignanvadhika she was trembled, who are you to work do you have here I will give a complaint against you shouted with anger Vedhika members called the Police, they entered the http://www.judis.nic.in16/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 scene collected all the packets, sent them to Drug control, Hyderabad for testing. It came to know that she had studied five years of Siddha medicine in Tamilnadu the police informed that whether it is curable to other diseases it cannot certainly cure AIDS it may be medicine for general strength cheating case was registered against her this siddha practitioner frequently visits Narasaropet, Guntur, Chilakaluripeta."
A bare perusal of the above articles, it could be seen that, the defendants 5 and 6, only made the statement with regard to complaint filed by the first and second defendants before the Inspector of Police, Governorpet Police Station. It is stated in the Eenadu newspaper, the packets of medicines as told by her may work in any manner, but, as there is no chance of curing AIDS by these medicines cheating case has been registered against her even before the entry of Janavignavedhika. It is also stated in India Today newspaper, that the plaintiff had studied five years of Siddha medicine in Tamilnadu. The police informed that whether it is curable to other diseases, it cannot certainly cure AIDS it may be medicine for general strength cheating case was registered against her this siddha practitioner frequently visits Narasaropet, Guntur, Chilakaluripeta.
10.11. It is to be noted that on a perusal of complaint, the second defendant never questioned the plaintiff's academic qualification, and only sought for clarification from the plaintiff with regard to the alleged http://www.judis.nic.in17/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 pamphlet and wallpaper, since in the wallpaper, incurable diseases have been projected as curable disease by her medicines. Therefore, the first defendant, as a responsible association, who had conducted various awareness programmes, had got doubt and given a complaint before the Governorpet Police Station on 04.06.2004. Based on the said complaint, the Inspector of Police, conducted an enquiry in the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.101 of 2004, and after enquiry, closed the case as mistake of fact. In the meantime, the Media persons, viz., the defendants 3 to 6, based on the complaint, publications have been made in the articles. As observed above, Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some person other than the person defamed, and unless and until that is done no civil action for defamation lies. In the case on hand, the defendants, based on the compliant filed by the defendants 1 and 2, have narrated the facts in the media, and there was no libel as alleged by the plaintiff in the publication of the said news item.
10.12. It is also to be noted that the second defendant never said the plaintiff is a fake doctor, as alleged by the plaintiff. In the complaint filed by the second defendant itself, it shows that he only made a complaint stating that on an earlier occasion, the doctors who attempted to cheat the public by stating that they can cure only by medicines for incurable diseases were arrested. Therefore, on the said impact, the second defendant had http://www.judis.nic.in18/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 lodged a complaint against the plaintiff and there was no intention to harm or with knowledge or reasonable belief that will harm the reputation of the plaintiff.
10.13. Likewise, the defendants 3 to 6 / media, based on the registration of F.I.R., published the article, and there was no libel as alleged by the plaintiff in the publication of the said news item. The said publications were made only based on a factual report. Though the Inspector of Police took the plaintiff for investigation, and case in Crime No.101 of 2004 was registered, after verification of qualification of the plaintiff, she was released. Even in the content of F.I.R. does not show any defamation against the plaintiff. The said facts have been narrated by the defendants 3 to 6 in the media.
10.14. Though the plaintiff during cross-examination had adduced evidence that the alleged pamphlet was not printed and circulated by her, a perusal of pamphlet, it is seen that the name has been mentioned as Dr.M.Sudha, B.S., M.S. and phone numbers have been mentioned as 044- 31175970 and 09444158997 and the plaintiff had admitted that phone numbers printed in the pamphlet are that of her. Further, the plaintiff was also staying in the address printed in the pamphlet. When a defense was raised by the defendants that the pamphlet was printed by the plaintiff and http://www.judis.nic.in19/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 circulated to the public, to disprove the said contention, no acceptable evidence was produced by the plaintiff.
10.15 The malice in law which is presumed in every false and defamatory statements stands rebutted by a privileged occasion. Further, it was not proved by the plaintiff that there was misunderstanding or strained relationship between her and the defendants. In the absence of any proof, with regard to the strained relationship or ill feeling between the plaintiff and the defendants, no ulterior motive can be attributed for the publication made by the defendants. The plaintiff also miserably failed to establish her case by adducing any acceptable evidence. It is also settled principle of law that the word "malice" is used in the sense of an improper motive and that the burden of proof lies only on the plaintiff. Here also, in the absence of any proof, no malice can be attributed for the article published by the defendants 3 to 6 and the complaint filed by the defendants 1 and 2 before the Inspector of Police, Governorpet Police Station.
10.16 Even assuming the averment to be an imputation, there is no proof to show that it was made with an intention to harm or with knowledge or reasonable belief that it will harm the reputation of the plaintiff. No other witnesses have been examined by the plaintiff to prove the case of http://www.judis.nic.in20/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 plaintiff. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the defendants have not made any defamatory either by way of malice or libel, and accordingly, the Issue Nos.3,4,5,7,8 and 9 are answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
11. In the light of the above findings, the suit necessarily fails and it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
04.11.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No rns List of Witness examined on the side of the plaintiff V.Sudha Muralidharan - PW1 List of documents marked on the side of the plaintiff SL. Exhibits DESCRIPTION OF DATED No DOCUMENTS
1. P1 Certificate 01.10.1993
2. P2 Provisional Certificate 03.10.1994 http://www.judis.nic.in21/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007
3. P3 Certificate of Internship 13.09.1994
4. P4 Registration Certificate 30.03.2000
5. P5 Certificate 25.06.1993
6. P6 Legal Notice 30.06.2004
7. P7 Notice 09.07.2004
8. P8 Acknowledment
9. P9 FIR 04.06.2004
10. P10 Publication in EENADU 05.06.2004
11. P11 Publication in India Today
12. P12 Letter 16.09.2004
13. P13 Final Report 26.11.2004 List of Witness examined on the side of the defendant Velaga Srinivas - DW1 List of documents marked on the side of the defendant SL. Exhibits DESCRIPTION OF DATED No DOCUMENTS
1. D1 Photograph -
2. D2 Reply to Legal Notice 28.07.2004
3. D3 Regulations for Promotion of Indian Medicine
4. D4 Xerox copy of press clipping from 29.11.2007 “The Deccan Chronicle”
5. D5 Xerox copy of Press clipping from 29.11.2007 “The Hindu”
6. D6 Xerox copy of Press clipping from 29.11.2007 “The Hindu”
7. D7 Press clipping from “The Hindu” 17.07.2007 http://www.judis.nic.in22/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007
8. D8 Press Clipping from “The Hindu” 18.07.2007
9. D9 Press Clipping from “The Hindu” 18.07.2007
10. D10 Xerox copy of List of Members of 2009-2011 Governing body of NCSTC Network 11 D11 Profile of the 1st Defendant 2008 12 D12 Press clipping from “The Hindu” 22.11.2008
13. D13 Press clipping from “The Hindu” 24.11.2008
14. D14 Letter from centre for Science and 10.09.2010 Environment to the President of 1st Defendant
15. D15 Letter from Government of Andhra 06.10.2010 Pradesh to General Secretary of 1st Defendant
16. D16 Letter from Government of Andhra 12.10.2010 Pradesh to General Secretary of 1st Defendant 17 D17 Question paper for the talent test 06.10.2010 conducted by D1 18 D18 Press clipping from “The Hindu” 01.03.2011 04.11.2020 (P.V.J.) P. VELMURUGAN, J.
rns http://www.judis.nic.in23/24 C.S.No.593 of 2007 Pre-Delivery Judgment in CS.No.593 of 2007 04 / 11 / 2020 http://www.judis.nic.in24/24