Madras High Court Upholds Damages for Actor Sukanya in 29-Year-Old Defamation Case Against Sun TV

Nearly three decades after a controversial television interview sparked widespread attention in Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court has ruled in favour of veteran actor R. Sukanya, holding that defamatory remarks aired during the broadcast caused significant harm to her reputation and justified the award of monetary compensation.

In a judgment delivered on June 5, Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed an appeal filed by Sun TV Network and upheld a lower court’s order directing the broadcaster to pay ₹10,00,500 in damages to the actor.

The dispute stemmed from a television programme aired on April 17, 1996, during a politically turbulent period in Tamil Nadu.

At the time of the broadcast, Sukanya was among the most celebrated and sought-after actors in South Indian cinema.

Having worked extensively in Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada films, she had established herself as one of the leading stars of the 1990s.

The telecast occurred just weeks before a crucial Lok Sabha and Assembly election that would significantly alter the state’s political landscape.

The programme in question, titled Nerukku Ner (Face to Face), featured an interview conducted by journalist and editor R. Rajagopal, popularly known as Nakkheeran Gopal, with the notorious forest brigand Veerappan, who at the time was one of India’s most wanted fugitives.

During the interview, Veerappan allegedly made remarks linking Sukanya to a purported political controversy involving the son of former Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao.

Sukanya consistently maintained that the allegations were entirely baseless, damaging and defamatory.

Justice Babu observed that the trial court had already concluded that the statements were defamatory in nature and noted that neither the broadcaster nor the interviewer had seriously challenged the existence of the remarks during the proceedings.

The court recorded Sukanya’s argument that the allegations were deeply offensive to her dignity and personal reputation.

She contended that the broadcast tarnished her public image and affected how she was perceived by her family, friends and the wider public.

The actor also argued that while certain abusive expressions used elsewhere in the interview had been muted, the broadcaster deliberately chose to retain the defamatory remarks concerning her.

The legal battle proved to be a lengthy one. Sukanya initially approached the Madras High Court in 1996 seeking damages and an injunction against the broadcast.

Due to subsequent changes in pecuniary jurisdiction, the matter was transferred to a civil court in Chennai. In April 2015, the trial court ruled in her favour and ordered Sun TV to pay compensation, prompting the broadcaster to challenge the decision before the High Court.

Before the appellate court, Sun TV argued that it had merely aired content recorded by another party and functioned only as a broadcasting platform.

The network also pointed to a disclaimer aired during the programme stating that the views expressed belonged to Veerappan and not to the channel.

Additionally, it cited a later expression of regret published in a Tamil magazine after receiving legal notice from the actor.

However, the High Court placed significant emphasis on the agreement executed between Sun TV and the magazine group associated with the interview.

Evidence presented before the court revealed that the original interview with Veerappan lasted nearly nine hours.

The footage was subsequently edited into approximately four hours of programming and broadcast over multiple days.

The court noted that the agreement granted the broadcaster extensive editorial control over the content before it was aired.

Both the trial court and the High Court found that Sun TV possessed the authority to edit, remove, alter or modify any part of the interview prior to telecast.

Justice Babu observed that once a broadcaster reserves such unrestricted editorial rights, it also assumes the responsibility of carefully examining the material before publication.

The court held that the channel could not evade accountability for content it had the power to edit or remove.

The judge also rejected the broadcaster’s contention that Sukanya had failed to establish actual damage to her reputation.

The judgment stated that injury to reputation naturally follows the publication of defamatory statements and noted that the actor had testified about losing professional opportunities as a result of the telecast.

Importantly, the court observed that her testimony remained largely unshaken during cross-examination and therefore deserved due consideration.

One of the most noteworthy aspects of the ruling related to the broadcaster’s response after receiving legal notice. Rather than issuing an apology through its own television platform, Sun TV chose to publish an expression of regret in a Tamil magazine.

The court questioned this decision, observing that an apology broadcast on the same channel would have reached the audience that had originally viewed the controversial programme.

According to the judgment, the choice to publish the apology elsewhere reflected poorly on the broadcaster’s conduct and suggested a lack of genuine corrective intent.

The verdict effectively brings closure to a dispute that began during a transformative era in Tamil Nadu’s media landscape.

The mid-1990s witnessed the rapid rise of private satellite television channels, the growing influence of celebrity journalists and widespread public fascination with Veerappan, whose rare interviews attracted enormous viewership across the state.

For Sukanya, the litigation stretched across nearly three decades—longer than many careers in the film industry.

The actor, who approached the courts in 1996 at the peak of her popularity and during the same year she appeared in the blockbuster Indian, has now secured a final judicial affirmation that the allegations broadcast against her were defamatory and had unlawfully damaged her reputation.