Zee Media moved the Madras High Court yesterday to dismiss the interrogatories raised by cricketer MS Dhoni in connection with Dhoni’s defamation suit against Zee in 2014 over the Indian Premier League (IPL) betting scandal.
(Interrogatories refers to written questions asked by one party to a suit, to which the other party has to give written answers under oath).
A division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq was hearing a petition filed by Zee Media Corporation Limited challenging a November 11, 2022 order of a single-judge that denied its request to set aside Dhoni’s interrogatories.
The bench refused to grant an interim stay on the single-judge order, but agreed to hear Zee’s appeal on 13th March,2023.
MS Dhoni filed a defamation suit against the media company and others, including IPS Sampath Kumar, for making derogatory remarks about the cricketer during the 2013 IPL Betting Scandal. In addition, Dhoni had also recently filed criminal contempt proceedings against the IPS officer for his anti-judiciary remarks.
Senior Counsel PR Raman, appearing on behalf of MS Dhoni, then asked 17 interrogatories because the written statements filed were general and did not contain specific responses. The single judge consented to the same.
Zee had then submitted an application to annul the order, but it was denied.
When rejecting Zee’s application, the single judge noted that the media house had not shown justification for overturning the judgement, and further a single judge could not set aside the order of another single judge.
The media company has now challenged this order before the division bench, saying that it was unfair and unjust to permit interrogatories in the first place.
Advocate Jose John, appearing for Zee Media, claimed that the single judge issued the impugned order without considering the balance of unreasonableness, vexatiousness, prolixity, oppression, and so on.
The single judge had overlooked the fact that allowing such interrogations would give Dhoni an advantage because he would have access to Zee’s evidence beforehand.
Advocate John also contended that the interrogatories amounted to cross-examination of the defendant in front of the plaintiff, which was contrary to established practice of law.
