A defamation case running for nearly three decades has ended in favour of veteran actress R. Sukanya. The Madras High Court has upheld a lower court’s decree ordering Sun TV Network Limited to pay ₹10,00,500 in damages to her. Delivering the verdict, Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed the network’s appeal against a 2015 city civil court judgment, finding that the channel had acted with commercial malice by airing unverified allegations made by the forest brigand Veerappan in a 1996 programme.
The dispute dates back to April 17, 1996, when Sun TV aired an episode of its show Nerukku Ner (Face to Face) featuring an interview with Veerappan, recorded in the Sathyamangalam forests by journalist and Nakkheeran editor R.R. Gopal. During it, Veerappan made false claims about Sukanya, linking her to a relative of a prominent national political figure and suggesting it was used for political leverage ahead of the 1996 general elections. Sukanya, then at the height of her career following Kamal Haasan’s Indian, challenged the broadcast, saying it caused serious harm to her reputation and family.
Why the court rejected Sun TV’s defence
Through the long litigation, Sun TV argued that it was merely a platform for third-party footage, that it carried an on-screen disclaimer attributing the views solely to Veerappan, that it never re-telecast the segment after the legal notice, and that it had published an expression of regret in a regional magazine.
The High Court rejected those arguments. Justice Kumaresh Babu noted that, under its agreement with Gopal, Sun TV had full editorial rights to edit or cut the tape before broadcast — meaning it was aware of the sensitive content but chose to keep the allegations for viewership. The court also held that publishing a regret in a separate magazine, rather than airing a correction on the same channel, did not reach the original audience and pointed to malice.
A precedent on media responsibility
The court observed that Sun TV had made no attempt to seek Sukanya’s response or to verify Veerappan’s claims before broadcasting them. It dismissed the network’s argument that she had failed to quantify her loss, holding that damage to reputation naturally follows the publication of such material about a well-known public figure.
Legal observers see the ruling as a notable precedent, underscoring that a generic disclaimer does not shield a broadcaster from liability when it fails to verify what it airs — a point increasingly relevant for today’s satellite channels and streaming platforms.
Leave a Reply