Pmk reply notice to dmk panchami land
பா.ம.க. தலைமை நிலையச் செய்தி முரசொலி பஞ்சமி நில சர்ச்சை: திமுகவுக்கு பா.ம.க. நிறுவனர் மருத்துவர் அய்யா பதில் வழக்கறிஞர் கே.பாலு அனுப்பினார்
பஞ்சமி நில சர்ச்சை தொடர்பாக பா.ம.க. நிறுவனர் மருத்துவர் அய்யா அவர்களுக்கு திமுக அமைப்பு செயலாளர் ஆர்.எஸ்.பாரதி அவதூறு வழக்கு நோட்டீஸ் அனுப்பியிருந்தார் இது தொடர்பாக மருத்துவர் அய்யா அவர்கள் சார்பில் வழக்கறிஞர் கே.பாலு அவர்கள் ஆர்.எஸ்.பாரதியின் வழக்கறிஞர் நீலகண்டனுக்கு பதில் அனுப்பியுள்ளார்.அதன் விவரம்:
K.BALU No. 156, Thambu Chetty Street,
Advocate & Notary Public Chennai – 600 001.
Cell : 9444088866
Mr. R. Neelakandan,
No. 195, New Addl. Law Chambers,
High Court Buildings,
Chennai – 600 104.
Ref: Your legal notice dated 22.11.2019 issued on
behalf of your client viz., Mr. R.S. Bharathi, Member of Parliament and Trustee, Murasoli Trust – Reg.
Your legal notice dated 22-11-2019 issued on behalf of your client is placed in my hands by my client viz., Dr. S. Ramadoss, Founder Leader of Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), Thailapuram, Thindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District, for suitable reply. Under instructions from my client, I hereby issue the following reply to your said legal notice dated 22.11.2019 as follows:-
2. My client states that he is the Founder Leader of the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) and relentlessly fighting for securing social justice for all sections of people, and to eradicate poverty, provide free education for children and to eliminate corruption from public life and politics. He is the first political leader to critically analyze the policies, acts and deeds of the Governments in power and of various organisations in public domain including political parties and makes unbiased, impartial and constructive comments on the functioning of such entities in the larger interest of and the welfare of citizens of the country.
3. My client, at the outset, vehemently denies all the contentions and allegations raised in your notice dated 22.11.2019, and states that they are opposed to facts and circumstances of the case except those that are specifically admitted hereunder. It is pertinent to emphasise that the entire allegations made in the notice dated 22.11.2019 are baseless, contrary to facts, politically motivated, intended to tarnish the reputation of my client and hence they are unsustainable in law and on facts.
4. My Client states that recent events in Tamilnadu have turned spotlight on Panchami lands. After seeing “Asuran” Tamil movie, Your client’s DMK Party President Mr. M.K.Stalin, has tweeted that the film is “not a movie, but a lesson”. There has, long, been a consistent demand from many organizations and political parties to restore Panchami land from Murasoli Trust, which is situated in the Panchami land. In the said circumstances, my client has tweeted that he believes that the panchami land has to be returned by the “Murasoli Trust” by learning lesson from Asuran Movie.
5. My client further states that in order to reply my client’s tweet, your client’s party leader Mr. M.K. Stalin has shown the Patta copy of Murasoli Trust land in support of his claim. My client has tweeted that patta copy is not a title document and it is legally not enough to substantiate the claim and has, therefore, made a demand to show the title deed and parent documents related to Murasoli Trust land. In the said situation, your client’s party leader has made a tweet that he would show the title deed of the land in question at appropriate time and before suitable forum, but he has not yet come forward to produce the promised title deeds till date.
6. In the said circumstances, a complaint has been filed before the National Commission for SC & ST and the proceedings have been initiated by the commission for this issue. Notice has been issued by the said National Commission for SC & ST to your client and enquiry has reportedly been held on 19.11.2019. Your client has appeared and instead of proving their genuineness before the Commission, your client has made defamatory statements in the electronic and print media as if my client had raised the said issue at first and also has made unfounded and uncalled for allegations against my client, to the effect that my client has occupied thousands of acres of land in various names.
7. My client states that your client’s statement is totally wrong, misconceived and unwarranted since there had been several agitations held continuously by various organisations and statements made against Murasoli Trust for having usurped Panchami land and constructed the Trust building. One of the Dalit Community organisations viz., மண்ணின் மைந்தர்கள் கழகம் made a statement on the same line and also conducted demonstration in the 1st week of June 2005, besides the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, late Selvi. J. Jayalalitha having issued a statement for restoration of Panchami land from Murasoli Trust and also an agitation was conducted by the AIADMK party on 28.08.2010, which was led by Mr. Sekar Babu, the then party functionary of AIADMK , who is now office bearer of your client’s party. In the relevant point of time, your client’s party was in power. It did not choose to file any complaint against the said AIADMK party and remained silent for the reasons best known to your Client. My client further states that whatever statements were tweeted by my client in this regard are meant only to advance the cause and the interest of Dalit Community and therefore, your client as well as the leader of DMK is duty bound to prove the title of Murasoli Trust land, since the issue is revolving around for the welfare of Dalit Community people and their centuries old fight for securing their land back snatched away from them by exploiting their economic vulnerability and social backwardness.
8. My client states that he strongly denies the averments made in para 9 of your notice dated 22.11.2019 and the averments made therein are totally nothing to do with the issues tweeted by my client. My client has no intention to derive any political milieu through communal and caste based politics. In fact during By- Election held October 2019, your client’s party leader Mr. M.K. Stalin has propagated the communal and caste politics for wooing the voters, but people were intelligent enough to see through the political game of divisive politics played by your client’s party leader and defeated your client’s party in the By- Election in Vikkaravandi and Nanguneri Assembly Constituencies. Hence, there is no modicum of truth in the allegations made against my client in para 9 of your notice dated 22.11.2019.
9. My client further states that it has often been claimed by several organisations and the political parties in the past that the office of Murasoli has been located in the Panchami land and under such undying allegations surfacing time and again, it is your client’s duty to establish that Murasoli’s office is not situated on Panchami land. But, your client has diverted the issue by making such uncharitable political comments against my client which do not contain even an iota of truth and has been made understandably only with the sole aim of disturbing the communal harmony.
10. My client further states that the averments made in para 10 and 11 are totally irrelevant and have apparently been made therein for your client’s party leader’s satisfaction. If at all your client’s party leaders are having any genuine interest and real concern over the well being of Dalit community, they should either publicly show the title deed of Murasoli Trust Land and put an end to the public criticism once for all or otherwise, they should return the said land to the Dalit Community people as a good exemplar of living true to the ideology of your client’s party of ‘”doing what is said or saying what is doble” . On the other hand, your client’s party leaders are levelling such wild and baseless political allegations against my client and his party knowing full well that they are not true and correct.
11. My client stoutly denies that he has not made any defamatory averments as alleged in your notice dated 22.11.2019. For the benefit of your client as well as his party leaders’ understanding, the meaning of defamation as defined under Section 499 of IPC is as follows:
“whoever, by words either spoken are intended to be read, or by signs or by visual representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person is said, except in the cases hereinafter, expected, to defame that person”.
The first exception – imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published – it is not a defamation to impute anything, which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
The tweets made by my client are only for welfare of Dalit Community and therefore they do not attract the aforesaid provisions. Hence your client’s allegations are baseless and not sustainable under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code.
12. My client states that he is a well known, popular and a responsible Social & Political leader and is tirelessly fighting for social justice for the poor, down trodden and the socially and educationally backward sections of the society and has also done several good deeds for the welfare of Dalit Community. Therefore, averments made in your notice dated 22.11.2019 are baseless, far from truth and not sustainable under the penal laws. Hence, it is stated that your notice dated 22.11.2019 has been issued only for the purpose of wrecking political vendetta against my client and to satisfy your client’s party leader viz., Mr. M.K. Stalin.
My client therefore requests you to advise your client to withdraw the notice dated 22.11.2019 immediately and unconditionally and tender unconditional apology for having made defamatory statements against my client. My client believes that your good will prevail over your client and your client will desist from indulging in such misadventure against my client in future. Kindly advise your client that your client will be doing so at his own peril and legal risk and he shall be solely responsible for all the consequences including exemplary damages besides the other civil and criminal proceedings against your client.
Mr. R.S. Bharathi,
Member of Parliament,
Trustee of Murasoli trust,
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam,
No. 367-369, Anna Arivalayam,
Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018.