Delhi High Court Intervenes in Defamation Case Against Eenadu and Andhra Jyothi
Andhra Pradesh’s political landscape witnessed a significant legal development as the Delhi High Court addressed a defamation lawsuit filed by Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy against two prominent Telugu newspapers, Eenadu and Andhra Jyothi. The lawsuit, amounting to a staggering Rs. 100 crore, centers around allegations of bribery in a solar power purchase agreement with the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI). Reddy contends that the newspapers published false and malicious reports linking him to the alleged bribery, causing significant damage to his reputation and political standing. The court’s intervention marks a critical juncture in the ongoing battle between the Chief Minister and the media houses, highlighting the increasing scrutiny of media ethics and the power of misinformation in the digital age.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Subramonium Prasad, issued summons to the publishers and editors of both Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited (Eenadu) and Amodha Publications Private Limited (Andhra Jyothi). The court’s directive also mandates the immediate removal of the allegedly defamatory articles, videos, and social media posts from their respective platforms. This proactive step underscores the court’s commitment to addressing the spread of misinformation and protecting the reputation of individuals from unsubstantiated claims. Furthermore, the court served notices to the newspapers, cautioning against any further publication of similar misleading content related to the case. This preventative measure aims to curb the potential for continued defamation and maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
Reddy’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, argued that the reports published by Eenadu and Andhra Jyothi were baseless, politically motivated, and aimed at tarnishing the Chief Minister’s image. They emphasized that the articles referenced criminal allegations filed in a U.S. court without providing any evidence of Reddy’s involvement in receiving bribes. Crucially, they clarified that Reddy had neither received any notice from the U.S. court nor been implicated in the proceedings. The court acknowledged the apparent malicious intent behind the publications, noting the absence of any evidence linking Reddy to the allegations in the U.S. court case. This observation formed the basis for the court’s decision to issue summons and direct the removal of the defamatory content.
At the heart of the controversy lies a solar power purchase agreement between the Andhra Pradesh government and SECI, facilitated by the central government. Reddy maintains that the agreement secured solar power at an exceptionally low rate, significantly benefiting the state and saving an estimated Rs. 1 lakh crore over 25 years. He accused the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), the primary opposition party in the state, of orchestrating the false reporting campaign through Eenadu and Andhra Jyothi. This accusation adds a layer of political intrigue to the legal battle, suggesting that the defamation suit is part of a larger political power struggle within Andhra Pradesh. Reddy alleges that the newspapers began publishing the unfounded claims on November 21, misrepresenting the agreement’s terms and falsely claiming it was rushed through without due process.
Reddy categorically denied any personal involvement in the agreement, emphasizing that it was solely between the state and central governments. He argued that rejecting such a beneficial agreement would have been detrimental to the state’s interests. The agreement, he explained, was meticulously scrutinized by a committee of officials and subsequently approved by the state Cabinet. The Chief Minister highlighted the significant reduction in solar power prices achieved under his administration compared to the previous TDP regime, further bolstering his defense against the allegations of impropriety. The sharp contrast in prices, he argued, demonstrates his commitment to securing affordable energy for the state.
Reddy explicitly distanced himself from the legal proceedings in the U.S. court, stating that they were entirely unrelated to the defamatory reports published by the newspapers. He asserted that the articles lacked any factual basis and were a deliberate attempt to smear his reputation. The Chief Minister’s consistent denial of any wrongdoing underscores his determination to fight the allegations and protect his political career. He accuses Eenadu and Andhra Jyothi of harboring a long-standing animosity towards him and his family, alleging that they have consistently served the political interests of the TDP and its leader, N. Chandrababu Naidu. Despite previous legal notices and requests for apologies, the newspapers allegedly persisted in their campaign of misinformation. Reddy firmly believes that the defamatory reports are part of a larger political conspiracy to undermine his leadership and damage his public image. He has demanded accountability for the false reporting and seeks to prevent further attacks on his reputation and that of his family. The upcoming court hearing, scheduled for December 16, will be a crucial step in determining the outcome of this high-stakes legal battle and its implications for media freedom and accountability in India.