Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(c) The plaintiff Trust is having no locus standi to file this suit because the defendants' have not defamed or disparaged the reputation of the Trust, but only they exposed the nefarious and licentious activities committed by Nithyananda.

(d) When Nithyananda himself has not come forward to file this suit, it is not open for the plaintiff Trust to file the same.

(e) Over and above the news items, in one of the newspapers, namely, 'Dina Malar' it was published as though Nithyananda had resigned from his managing trusteeship and that was not contradicted by the other side also. In such a case, as of now, the said Nithyananda is not part of the plaintiff Trust and consequently, the plaintiff Trust is having no locus standi to seek injunction, so as to protect the alleged rights of Nithyananda.

(h) On the one hand Nithyananda projected himself as a Bramachari and made the people to believe him so, but quite antithetical to it, he indulged in sexual acts and thereby cheated the public.

(i) Nithyananda cannot claim privacy and thereby prevent the media from exposing his misdeeds.

(j) The defendants have been making publications by virtue f the qualified privilege accorded to it by law.

(k) Earlier one other suit O.S.No.2321 of 2010 was filed allegedly by Nithyananda seeking similar injunction. However, when the defendants therein raised doubt about the very genuineness of the plaint signed by Nithyananda, all of a sudden, the counsel who appeared for Nithyananda, simply endorsed the plaint as not pressed and got it dismissed behind the back of the defendants' counsel.

17. At this juncture, I would like to refer to the very defence of the defendants. In my opinion, the defence as put forth by the learned counsel on behalf of the defendants would go against the locus standi theory. The learned counsel for the defendant, by way of defending the defendants' right to expose Nithyananda of his alleged illegal activities, would submit that it is because Nithyananda projected himself falsely as though he is a Brimhachari and capable of doing some miraculous cure, he attracted devotees and gathered huge wealth for the trust as the founder trustee as well as the kingpin of the Trust. In such a case, I am of the considered view that Nithyananda's activities and the activities of the Ashram and the trust so far this case is concerned cannot be separated from one another and viewed as though the Trust is only a legal person and Nithyanandha is a different person from the trust. Furthermore it is also the appropriate contention of the defendants that Nithyananda cannot plead as though he has got a private life than his public life as the Managing Trustee of the Trust and that too after projecting himself as the Brimhachari founder trustee before the public.

53. My discussion supra would reveal that so far this case is concerned the right of Trust and the right of Nithyananda cannot be separated from each other, as they got intermixed and interlinked, interconnected and entwined with each other.

54. The learned counsel for the defendants, by inviting the attention of this Court to the fact that earlier the defendants in their magazine made publication about Nithyananda that he was hugging girls in Coimbatore in a function, whereupon, on Nithyananda's side it was replied also published to the effect that he was like Vivekananda and other renowned sages. Whereupon Nithyananda thrusted himself into the controversy and in such a case he cannot contend that his privacy was violated.