THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: In a significant setback for the Malayalam daily, Mathrubhumi, a court has issued an interim order directing the newspaper to immediately remove “false and defamatory” news articles published against IAS officer N. Prasanth.
The court’s directive comes in a defamation suit filed by Prasanth, who demanded ₹50 lakh in compensation, alleging that the newspaper published articles based on a “fabricated and malicious” report. The interim order is a major win for the officer.
The disputed articles, published while Prasanth was serving as Special Secretary for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Development Department, claimed he had used ‘bogus attendance’ and had not handed over files related to the ‘Unnathi’ (Kerala Empowerment Society) project to the new CEO, Gopalakrishnan. The newspaper cited a purported report by Dr. A. Jayathilak to the Chief Minister as the source of these claims.
Court Actions and Conspiracy Allegations
The court, admitting the case, has ordered summons to be sent to the accused: Mathrubhumi Senior Reporter Biju Paravath, Editor Manoj K. Das, Publisher P.V. Nideesh, Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Company, and Mathrubhumi Managing Director M.V. Shreyams Kumar. Crucially, the court has directed the defendants to refrain from re-publishing the news and to remove it from their website, e-paper, and social media platforms.
Prasanth’s petition strongly argues that the report cited by Mathrubhumi was illegally prepared through a conspiracy, without following any due procedure. The suit suggests a pre-planned conspiracy, pointing out that an RTI application to obtain details of such an improperly created report indicates prior knowledge and malicious intent.
The complaint further states that the defendants knowingly published the articles despite being fully aware that the underlying report was factually incorrect and maliciously fabricated. The suit notes that even after the news content was proven false by other media outlets days later, Mathrubhumi failed to retract the defamatory article, which, according to the suit, confirms their wicked intention to publicly defame the officer.
Advocates Boris Paul, Sajan Xavier, and Manoj Sridhar appeared on behalf of N. Prasanth.
