High Court says P Thiagarajan also failed to prove all essential elements of defamation against an online Tamil news portal.
Judicial commissioner Rihaida Rafie dismissed the suit filed by P Thiagarajan against G Pasupathy, who operates Thisaigal TV, after finding that the plaintiff had failed to plead the alleged defamatory words in the original Tamil language together with an accurate Bahasa Malaysia translation.
The court held that the failure was not merely a technical procedural defect but a fatal flaw that undermined the foundation of the defamation claim.
The suit arose from a news broadcast published by Thisaigal TV in April 2019 concerning the withdrawal of V Senggutuan’s appointment as assistant director of the Tamil language unit at the Selangor education department.
Thiagarajan, better known as “Oms” Thiagarajan in corporate and political circles, claimed that the broadcast referred to him as a leader of a Klang-based social and welfare organisation.
He also claimed the broadcast falsely suggested that he had used his influence to interfere in Senggutuan’s appointment revocation. Thiagarajan said the allegation had damaged his reputation.
He sought RM5 million in damages, an open apology and costs.
However, the defendant denied that the broadcast specifically referred to Thiagarajan, arguing that the reference to a “Vanniyar association leader in Klang” was general and did not identify him.
In her judgment, Rihaida said the words formed the foundation of a defamation claim and must be properly pleaded in accordance with the Rules of Court 2012.
The court referred to Order 92 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012, which requires documents used in court proceedings to be prepared in the national language.
Rihaida said the plaintiff only provided an English translation of the alleged defamatory statements in his amended statement of claim, despite the original broadcast being in Tamil.
She held that Thiagarajan had failed to plead the original words together with a proper Bahasa Malaysia translation as required by law.
The court relied on previous Court of Appeal decisions, including Rekha d/o Munisamy v Ortus Expert White Sdn Bhd & Anor and Mabel Sheela a/p Victor Muttiah v Clare Louise Brown, which held that failure to provide a Bahasa Malaysia translation of defamatory words could be fatal to a defamation claim.
“The requirement under Order 92 Rule 1 is not merely a technical formality. In a defamation action, the words complained of are the core of the cause of action itself,” she said.
Rihaida added that without an accurate translation, the court could not properly determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the alleged defamatory words.
Apart from the pleading defect, the judge also found that Thiagarajan had failed to prove that the broadcast referred to him.
The court noted that his name was never mentioned in the broadcast and that there was no photograph or specific detail identifying him as the person being referred to.
The court said Thiagarajan’s belief that the broadcast referred to him was insufficient, as the test was whether a reasonable viewer would understand that the broadcast referred to him.
“The identification of the plaintiff must be based on the perception of a reasonable viewer, and not merely the plaintiff’s own belief,” she said.
Rihaida said Thiagarajan had also failed to prove that the broadcast carried a defamatory meaning against him.
Although the broadcast raised questions about alleged interference in a public appointment, she said it could not be interpreted as clearly portraying Thiagarajan as dishonest, lacking integrity or abusing his influence.
Rihaida said that while the broadcast had been published to third parties, this alone was insufficient to establish liability as the plaintiff failed to prove the other essential elements of defamation. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.