SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

2022 V.SenthilBalaji …Applicant/ Plaintiff Versus A.Shankar … Respondent/Defendant Common Counter Affidavit of A.Shankar M/s.Elizabeth Seshadri Counsel for Defendant

by ·

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

OA                    of2022                  ?h9h/aL

CS No. 172 of2022

V.SenthilBalaji

NB 27, Mullai Illam, PS Kumarasamiraja Road

Chennai – 600 028   Applicant/Plaintiff

Versus

A.Shankar

12/6, Sector 11, Z type, 1 St floor, TNHB Flat

Maduravoyil, Chennai 600 095 Respondent/Defendant

Counter Affidavit of A. Shankar

I, A.Shankar, s/o Late Achimuthu, aged about 47 years, residing at 12/6, Sector Il, Z Type, I st

Floor, TNHB Flat, Maduravoyil, Chennai -95 do solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:

l . I am the Defendant in the above Suit and the Respondent herein. I am aware of the facts of the case.

  1. I have filed my Written Statement dated 25.01.2023 in the above Suit. The contents of the same may be read as part of this Affidavit, and treated as my counter to the above Application.
  2. I am producing a Typed Set containing the documents and video web-links mentioned in the Written Statement.
  3. The Plaintiff seeks an omnibus gag order in this Application, to prevent me from making any statement against him on any platform. The Plaintiff is in the public eye, deals with public matters and public funds. I am a political commentator and journalist whose prime task is to comment on public matters. A gag order as sought for by the Plaintiff is against public interest, against the Constitution and beyond the scope of a defamation suit where damages have been sought for as a remedy.
  4. I am not the only one talking about the Plaintiffs conduct in public matters. Seeking to gag me will not gag all such content; but is an attempt at sending a chilling effect message to suppress journalism and political analysis and commentary. There is so much material in the public domain that say the same things I have said. As a politician who works to represent people, the Plaintiff should expect political commentary on his work. Much of what I have said is bome out by Case and Court records. The Plaintiff has no prima facie case. The balance of convenience is in favour of permitting constitutionally cherished values of free speech and citizens’ rights to know and be informed in a democracy. The Plaintiff seeks secrecy. The Balance of convenience is in favour of transparency. The Plaintiff has the option of publicly denying strongly every statement I have made. The Plaintiff is in control of the records and personnel of the concerned departments to make studied, categoric denials in public to counter my statements, instead of attempting to call them defamatory.
  5. I respectfully pray that this Application may be dismissed with heavy costs.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on this the 24th day of January, 2023 and signed his name in my presence

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

O.A.N0. 509 of 2022

A.N0. 3494 of 2022

In

CS No. 172 of 2022

V.SenthilBalaji

…Applicant/ Plaintiff

Versus

A.Shankar

… Respondent/Defendant

Common Counter Affidavit of A.Shankar

M/s.Elizabeth Seshadri

Counsel for Defendant

 

You may also like...