Three Decades of Defamation: Actor Sukanya Wins Legal Battle Over Infamous Veerappan Interview

The Madras High Court has ordered Sun TV to pay ₹10 lakh in damages to actor Sukanya for airing scandalous and unverified allegations made by forest brigand Veerappan in 1996.

In the mid-nineties, the forest brigand Veerappan was a shadow looming over the Tamil Nadu-Karnataka border, yet his reach extended far beyond the jungles. In 1996, a series of interviews conducted by journalist Nakheeran R. Gopal and aired on Sun TV brought the outlaw’s rhetoric into living rooms across the state. For actor Sukanya, who was then riding the success of the blockbuster Indian, those broadcasts turned into a nightmare that would play out in the courts for the next 30 years.

The legal saga concluded this week when the Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the television network, upholding a 2015 city civil court order. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu found that the channel had failed in its basic journalistic duty. Despite possessing the editorial power to cut, modify, or censor the nine hours of footage provided by Gopal, the network chose to air segments that contained defamatory claims against the actor without any verification.

The Cost of Negligence

During the protracted proceedings, the network attempted to shift the burden, claiming they had no malicious intent and were merely broadcasting content provided by the journalist. Gopal countered this by pointing out the internal agreements of the time, which clearly gave the network the final say on what went to air. Out of nine hours of raw footage, the channel curated and broadcasted four hours over eight days—a deliberate editorial choice that the court found damning.

What particularly irked the court was the channel’s inconsistent response to the controversy. After Sukanya served a legal notice, the network expressed regret, but it did so in a Tamil magazine rather than on the television channel where the damage had actually been inflicted. Justice Babu noted that this half-hearted apology, coupled with the refusal to verify the explosive claims before broadcasting them, proved the presence of malice.

Why It Matters

This ruling serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities inherent in mass media. While the case began in an era before the 24/7 digital news cycle, the verdict sets a significant precedent for accountability in broadcast journalism. It underscores that "just airing what a source says" is not a legal shield for media houses. When a network exercises the power to curate content, it assumes ownership of the narrative and the legal consequences that follow. For the industry, this is a signal that editorial oversight is not just a standard practice, but a critical legal safeguard against long-term liability.

The finality of the Madras High Court decision brings a measure of closure to a case that spanned three decades. While the ₹10 lakh damages may seem modest given the passage of time, the judicial acknowledgment of the actor's grievance restores a sense of accountability to a medium that often operates with little regard for the personal impact of sensationalist programming.