Nearly three decades after journalist Nakheeran R. Gopal’s interview with forest brigand Veerappan was telecast on Sun TV Network, actor R. Sukanya has finally won her long-running defamation case. The Madras High Court has directed the television network to pay Rs 10 lakh in damages to the actor for airing scandalous allegations made against her during the 1996 interview. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed a 2015 appeal filed by Sun TV Network against a city civil court decree that had ruled in favour of Sukanya. The court held that the charge of malice against the channel stood proven, observing that the network should have verified the contents of the interview before telecasting it.
Also Read: ‘I wanted to pick up gun’: Pawan Kalyan admits he wanted to be a Naxalite at 17 before Chiranjeevi stopped him
Who is R. Sukanya?
Sukanya rose to prominence in Tamil cinema during the 1990s. She made debut with ‘Pudhu Nellu Pudhu Naathu’ in 1991. Then she went on to deliver memorable performances in hits such as ‘Chinna Gounder’ (1992), ‘Walter Vetrivel’ (1993), and Kamal Haasan’s films ‘Mahanadhi’ (1994) and ‘Indian’ (1996).
She is also trained Bharatanatyam dancer and has worked as composer, lyricist, voice actress. Her versatility saw her act in Malayalam, Telugu, Kannada films as well. She later transitioned to television earning new generation of fans through popular Tamil serial ‘Anadham’.
By 1996, Sukanya was one of Tamil cinema’s leading faces. That same year, an interview aired on Sun TV would alter the course of her public life and set off a legal battle that would last three decades.
Who is Veerappan?
Koose Munisamy Veerappan was one of India’s most wanted criminals for much of the 1980s and 1990s. He operated in the forests straddling Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, running a long-running operation in sandalwood smuggling, ivory poaching, and murder. He evaded law enforcement for years and became a subject of extensive national attention.
Nakheeran Gopal, editor of the Tamil investigative magazine Nakheeran, is widely regarded as the first journalist to have interviewed Veerappan. His access to the brigand was unmatched among journalists of his era. Gopal and his team later acted as an emissary between Veerappan and state governments during the successful mission to rescue legendary Kannada actor Dr. Rajkumar, who had been abducted by the brigand in 2000.
In 1996, Gopal conducted a lengthy interview with Veerappan in the forest. The original recording ran for nine hours. Sun TV acquired the footage and broadcast it.
What was telecast on April 17, 1996?
Sun TV broadcast the interview on April 17, 1996. The channel edited the nine-hour recording down to four hours and aired it over eight days in 30-minute slots.
During the interview, Veerappan made a set of unverified claims targeting Sukanya directly. He alleged a personal relationship between Sukanya and the son of former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. He further claimed that a video involving them had been used by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa as a bargaining chip with the Congress party ahead of the 1996 general elections.
Although certain expletives used by Veerappan against Sukanya were muted during the broadcast, the specific portion linking her name to the allegations was deliberately retained and aired.
Sukanya denied all the allegations the moment they surfaced. She said the claims were entirely fabricated and that the broadcast had caused severe damage to her personal and professional reputation.
The lawsuit and the three defendants
Sukanya filed a civil defamation suit in 1996. She named Sun TV, journalist Nakheeran R. Gopal, and Veerappan as respondents, seeking Rs 10,00,500 in damages.
She initially sought Rs 1 crore in damages but later restricted her claim to Rs 10,00,500.
The case was initially filed before the Madras High Court. It was transferred to a civil court in 2011.
She argued that the defamatory statements clearly referred to her and were understood as such by viewers. She maintained that the channel, by deliberately not removing the defamatory content, acted in a malicious and reckless way to increase viewership at the expense of her dignity and reputation.
Sun TV argued in court that the opinions expressed were solely those of Veerappan and that a disclaimer had been aired before the broadcast to absolve the network of responsibility.
The 2015 civil court verdict
The civil court ruled in Sukanya’s favour in 2015, directing Sun TV to pay her Rs 10 lakh in damages.
The trial court made several key observations. It noted that Sukanya was a public figure and that her right to privacy had been violated. The court also noted that the channel must have earned significant revenue from the commercials aired between the programme’s slots. It found that Sun TV had knowledge of the defamatory allegations in the content and chose to broadcast them anyway, which the court described as showing clear ill will.
The trial court also restrained Sun TV and Gopal from republishing the defamatory claims in future.
Then Sun TV filed an appeal against this order before the Madras High Court.
Sun TV’s appeal and the High Court’s final ruling
Sun TV’s appeal rested on two main points. First the channel argued it could not be held liable because it was not originator of the defamatory statement. Second, it pointed to statement of regret published in Tamil magazine after receiving Sukanya’s legal notice by arguing this demonstrated good faith.
The Madras High Court rejected both arguments.
The court found that Sun TV had not exercised due diligence to verify Veerappan’s claims. It found that the channel neither sought a clarification from Sukanya nor independently cross-checked the allegations with any other source.
On the question of editorial control, the court was unambiguous. Under Sun TV’s agreement with Gopal, the channel held the right to edit, cut, delete, modify, or alter any part of the interview. The court ruled that having reserved that right, the channel had an equal duty to verify the contents before putting them on air.
On the apology, the court found it insufficient and telling. It observed that publishing a regret in a third-party magazine with no proven reach among Sun TV’s own viewers only demonstrated malice on the channel’s part. The court noted that had Sun TV expressed its regret on its own channel, it would have reached the same viewer who had seen the original broadcast. The choice not to do so was held against the network.
The appeal was dismissed and the Rs 10,00,500 damages award was upheld.
For Sukanya, the verdict closes a chapter that should never have been opened. For Indian media law, it adds weight to the standard that editorial power carries editorial responsibility.