The Madras High Court on Friday granted an interim injunction restraining K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji, Minister for Milk and Dairy Development, from making “baseless accusations of adulteration against private dairies in the State as a whole” and from making any statement or remark disparaging either three private milk sellers, who had approached the court seeking damages to the tune of ₹ 1 crore each from the Minister, or their products.
Justice C.V. Karthikeyan passed the order after taking strong exception to the Minister having “encouraged his advocate” to make disparaging remarks against private milk sellers in the media, without any substantiating document, despite a restraint order passed by the court on July 10. “There is no indication whether the defendant would rest in his assertions or whether he would produce test analysis reports to justify his statements.
“The statements by themselves justify an order of injunction... The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs since literally they are groping in darkness. No one knows whom the defendant had meant in his press statements. But the statements are sufficient to damage the reputation of all private milk producing companies since all their products would be viewed suspiciously,” the judge observed while allowing the plea for injunction.
Pointing out that Mr. Bhalaji had accused the private dairies of selling adulterated milk, the judge went on to state: “The statements extracted from the reports in the newspapers clearly reveal that the defendant had launched an all out attack on private milk and milk product producers. He had made very shocking revealations and it is up to him to justify the same. But the tenor of the statements indicate that unless there is an order of injunction, the pitch would only increase.
“The defendant must realise that honest workmen employed by private milk companies like plaintiffs would be first sufferers of such a tirade of accusations. They would be direct victims if suddenly sales of privately manufactured milk and milk products fall and companies feel the pinch of such a vitriolic campaign.” Mr. Justice Karthikeyan also stated that the counsel for the Minister had made a vain attempt to justify the statements made to the media.
He said that the Minister had not produced any document to prove that he had concrete evidence of private milk dairies selling adulterated milk on the dates on which he made press statements against them. “Producing documents which had been procured subsequently would not advance the cause of the defendant... Documents which are more than five years old would again not advance the cause of the defendant,” the judge added.
If there are materials to justify the statements, they should be produced as legally admissible documents and the defendant must subject himself for cross examination, the judge said and directed Hatsun Agro Product, Dodla Dairy and Vijay Dairy and Farm Products to subject their milk and milk products for voluntary tests in accredited laboratories once in three months and file the reports in the court so that they could be used for final disposal of the civil suit.
