The Malayalam News channel Mathurubhumi News issued a public apology to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in its issue on October 9, 2022, for a defamatory and misleading article written and published by Mathrubhoomi weekly in the year 2011 against the Sangh.
The apology came after the Malayalam news agency lost a legal battle in the Supreme Court, which dismissed its case and transferred it back to the Ernakulam Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court.
The Malayalam News agency was for the last 11 years fighting a legal battle against a defamation suit filed by RSS for publishing an article that was allegedly defamatory towards the organisation.
The Mathrabhumi editor’s apology came in response to the article with the cover page title “Bheekarathude Virus” (Virus of Terrorism). It was part of a series of five articles written and published from February 27, 2011, to March 2011, titled “Will RSS Terrorism Swallow India ?” The article was authored by Badri Reyna.
The details of the legal battle between Mathrubhumi and RSS
The lawsuit was filed against Mathrubhumi Illustrated Weekly based on a complaint filed by the RSS’s Kerala State Secretary in 2013, alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 153A, 500, and 34 of the IPC.
The complainant alleged that the article written and published by Mathrubhumi weekly contained defamatory and deceptive imputations, harming RSS’s public reputation.
The defamation case filed by then-RSS Prath Karyavah P Gopalankutty Master was heard in the Ernakulam Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court.
On March 19, 2013, Magistrate Court Adv KK Baralaram issued a legal notice to Mathrubhumi, pointing out that its report was factually incorrect. It claimed that the Mathrubhumi article was based on a statement submitted before the Panchkula Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Haryana by RSS activist Swami Aseemanand, who was allegedly pressured by the erstwhile UPA government to deliver false testimony in order to defame the RSS.
The notice further read that Swami Aseemanand was acquitted by the court in 2019 after it was discovered that the statement he was forced to sign was false.
It may be recalled that in the Samjhauta Express blast case, though LeT was initially blamed and a Pakistani national Asif Qasmani was named as the main accused, the proceedings of the case took a surprising turn when RSS activists Swami Aseemanand and others were blamed. After an expose by Times Now claimed that the UPA government might have let the Pakistani suspects go and pinned the blame on RSS, the BJP had stated that it was another attempt by the then UPA government to further their Hindu-terror agenda.
Mathrubhumi’s initial explanation to the RSS legal notice was that the article was written by Badri Reyna based on his studies and research. The Malayalam news channel then approached the Kerala High Court with an appeal to dismiss the case, claiming that the RSS State Secretary did not have locus standi (right) to represent the organisation.
However, the Kerala High Court rejecting the plea, ruled in January this year that because the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is a definite and identifiable body, its members have the locus standi (right) to file a defamation complaint.
In March 2022, Mathrubhumi approached the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court verdict, but the Supreme court bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose had in its March 25 order refused to entertain a petition challenging a Kerala High Court order.
“Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, we do not find any reason to entertain this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The petition seeking special leave to appeal is, accordingly, dismissed,” the apex court said.
Upholding the verdict of the Kerala HC, the Supreme Court ordered to continue the case in the trial court. Accordingly, the case continued in the Ernakulam Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court.
Meanwhile, after 11 years of legal battle, Mathrubhumi has now published an apology accepting that the article was factually incorrect.