THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, October 10, 2025 — Legal experts have unanimously opined that the defamation notice served on Leader of the Opposition V.D. Satheesan regarding his comments on the controversial gold-plating work at the Sabarimala temple is legally unsustainable. The experts argue that Satheesan’s statements fall under the protective ambit of free speech and political duty, severely weakening the private complaint.
The legal opinion, which cites several landmark Supreme Court judgments, highlighted key arguments against the validity of the notice:
1. Constitutional and Political Privilege: Experts noted that as an Opposition Leader, Satheesan has a constitutional and democratic duty to raise issues of public interest, such as alleged irregularities in the management of temple affairs. They pointed to Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech, and Supreme Court rulings like R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, which protects criticism made without ‘Actual Malice.’ Furthermore, the political nature of the speech, performed while discharging official responsibilities, warrants special consideration, as established in cases like K. Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Warrier.
2. Defence of Public Good: The legal analysis also invoked exceptions under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which came into effect from July 1, 2024. Specifically, Exception 1 (imputation made in good faith for the public good) and Exception 9 (statement made in good faith for the public good) provide a complete defense, particularly when the absence of malicious intent can be proven, as upheld in Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab.
3. No Cause of Action: Experts concluded there is “No Cause of Action” for a defamation suit, emphasizing that a public figure is necessarily subject to criticism, and political discomfort cannot be legally equated with defamation. The ruling in S. Khushbu v. Kanniyammal was referenced to assert that the demand for ₹2,00,00,000 (Two Crore Rupees) in compensation is without legal basis.
Based on these precedents, legal circles believe V.D. Satheesan is under no obligation to issue a public apology or withdraw his statements as demanded in the notice.
