Madras HC Dismisses Sun TV's Appeal, Upholds Rs 10 Lakh Defamation Award to Actress Sukanya Over 1996 Veerappan Interview Telecast

Sun TV Network's appeal against a defamation decree in favour of actress R. Sukanya has been dismissed, with the High Court holding that the channel's contractual right to edit the interview fixed its liability.

The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Sun TV Network Limited against a civil court decree directing it to pay Rs 10,00,500 in damages to actress R. Sukanya for a defamatory telecast aired on 17 April 1996. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, sitting singly, found no infirmity in the trial court's reasoning and held that Sun TV's contractual right to edit, cut, delete, or modify any portion of the interview — reserved under a written agreement with the interviewer — made it the party responsible for the defamatory content that was ultimately broadcast. The channel's decision to publish a regret in a third-party Tamil magazine rather than in its own broadcast was treated as a further indicator of malice.

The Defamatory Telecast and the Original Suit

The dispute traces back to April 1996. Sun TV's popular interview programme Nerukku Ner (“Face to Face”) featured an interview conducted by R.R. Gopal, Editor of the Tamil weekly Nakkheeran, with Veerappan — a proclaimed offender under the Governments of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, alleged to have been involved in abduction, murder, and sandalwood smuggling.

During that interview, Veerappan made a statement attributing an illicit relationship to actress R. Sukanya with the son of former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. The statement further alleged that this relationship had been videotaped and used by the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, J. Jayalalitha, to strike a political deal with the Congress Party ahead of the general elections of April/May 1996. The telecast went out on 17 April 1996.

Sukanya contended that while certain expletives used by Veerappan during the interview had been muted, the specific portion linking her name to the alleged scandal was deliberately retained despite being untrue. She filed a civil suit — originally C.S. No. 562 of 1996 before the Madras High Court — which was subsequently transferred to the XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, on grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction, where it was renumbered as O.S. No. 6386 of 2011. She sought Rs 10,00,500 in damages and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from re-telecasting or republishing the interview.

Defences Raised by Sun TV and R.R. Gopal

Sun TV filed a written statement denying liability. It contended that R.R. Gopal had approached the channel to telecast the interview and that Sun TV had merely broadcast it. The channel argued it had no intention to defame anyone and that the programme began with a disclaimer stating that the views expressed by Veerappan were his own and that Sun TV bore no responsibility for their authenticity. It further stated that it had not re-telecasted the programme after the controversy arose and had published a regret in the Tamil weekly Kumudam in August 1996.

R.R. Gopal, the second defendant, maintained that the interview was purely investigative journalism aimed at exposing Veerappan's criminal operations. He averred that the interview was conducted extempore, that no questionnaire had been furnished to Veerappan in advance, and that he had not posed any question, directly or indirectly, suggesting Sukanya's name. He also contended that under the terms of the telecast agreement with Sun TV, it was the channel that had the authority to edit portions of the interview.

Trial Court Findings

The XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, decided the suit on 15 April 2015. It held that neither Sun TV nor R.R. Gopal had denied that Veerappan made defamatory statements against Sukanya during the interview. The trial court found that the interview, originally recorded for nine hours, was edited by Sun TV to a four-hour programme and telecast over eight days in 30-minute slots, with Sun TV collecting tariff for commercial advertisements during the broadcast.

The trial court placed significant reliance on Ex.B23, the written agreement between Sun TV and R.R. Gopal. Clause 8 of that agreement gave Sun TV the right to edit any portion of the interview. The court held that Sun TV, knowing the defamatory content, had deliberately omitted to edit it out, which demonstrated “ill will” and a wrongful gain motive. Sun TV's managing director had subsequently issued an apology in Kumudham, which the trial court treated as an admission of the defamatory nature of the telecast.

On the question of proof of reputation, the trial court held that a famous actress need not examine third-party witnesses to establish that her reputation had been tarnished. It relied on Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact, and accepted Sukanya's sole testimony as sufficient. The court also rejected the argument that Sukanya's failure to produce the exact Tamil words of the defamatory statement in the plaint was fatal to her case, holding that the English translation she provided did not alter the meaning of what was said.

The trial court decreed the suit in Sukanya's favour, directing Sun TV to pay Rs 10,00,500 as damages and granting a permanent injunction restraining Sun TV and R.R. Gopal from telecasting or publishing the interview. Sun TV was also directed to pay the costs of the suit. R.R. Gopal was not found to have been actuated by malice and mala fide motive for eliciting the interview, and the malice finding was confined to Sun TV.

Arguments Before the High Court

Sun TV's counsel argued before Justice Kumaresh Babu that the trial court had presumed reputation and loss of reputation without tangible evidence. He pointed out that Sukanya had continued to act in approximately 65 films after the incident and that Sun TV itself had telecasted programmes in which she performed — which, he submitted, showed that her reputation had not in fact suffered. He contended that Sun TV was neither the originator of the interview nor responsible for its recording, having only telecasted it at R.R. Gopal's request, and that the trial court had erred in fastening sole liability for compensation on the channel.

Sukanya's counsel countered that Sun TV's own admission — that she had continued to act and that it had telecasted her programmes — was itself proof of her pre-existing reputation, making independent proof unnecessary. He argued that the publication of the regret in a third-party magazine rather than in Sun TV's own channel, which had the same viewership as the original telecast, was itself evidence of malice. He relied on Ex.B23 to submit that Sun TV, having retained an unrestricted right to edit, cut, and modify the interview, had a duty to verify its contents before broadcast and had failed to do so.

R.R. Gopal's counsel, while not having challenged the decree himself, supported the appellant's submissions on the question of presumed reputation and damages. He also argued that once Sun TV had called upon R.R. Gopal to enter into Ex.B23 and retained full editorial control, R.R. Gopal had no control over the final telecast, and the trial court had rightly confined liability to Sun TV.

High Court's Reasoning

Justice Kumaresh Babu addressed two issues: whether the trial court was right in holding that Sukanya was entitled to damages, and whether it was right in fastening liability solely on Sun TV.

On the first issue, the court found that Sun TV's own admissions — that Sukanya had continued to act in films and that it had telecasted programmes featuring her — were sufficient to establish her reputation without any separate proof. The court noted that neither Sun TV nor R.R. Gopal had attempted to discredit Sukanya's chief examination, in which she had specifically deposed about loss of opportunities to act in films. Having failed to challenge that deposition in cross-examination, Sun TV could not be heard to say that she had not proved loss of reputation. The court also noted that Sun TV's publication of a regret in a Tamil magazine was an admitted fact that further substantiated the defamatory nature of the telecast.

On the second issue, the court examined Ex.B23 in detail. It found that Clause 4 of the agreement showed Sun TV had been the beneficiary of commercial advertisements during the telecast, and that the agreement gave Sun TV complete and unrestricted rights to edit, cut, delete, modify, alter, and add any portion of the interview. The court held that having reserved these rights, Sun TV was under a duty to verify the contents of the interview before broadcast. It had not sought any clarification from Sukanya or conducted any investigation with third parties before airing the defamatory statement.

The court also drew an adverse inference from the manner in which the regret was published. It observed that if the regret had been published in Sun TV's own broadcast, it would have reached the very viewers who had seen the original telecast. Publishing it instead in a third-party Tamil magazine — whose reach was not shown to be comparable to Sun TV's viewership — demonstrated malice on the channel's part. The court found no infirmity in the trial court's reasoning on either issue and answered both against Sun TV.

Outcome

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed A.S. No. 971 of 2015 on 5 June 2026, with no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition, M.P. No. 1 of 2015, was closed. The trial court's decree — directing Sun TV Network Limited to pay Rs 10,00,500 to actress R. Sukanya as damages, along with the permanent injunction restraining Sun TV and R.R. Gopal from telecasting or publishing the Veerappan interview — stands confirmed.