Why Did Kerala BJP Chief Chandrasekhar File a Rs 100 Crore Defamation Suit Against a TV Channel?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a significant legal move, Kerala BJP President Rajeev Chandrasekhar has filed a Rs 100 crore defamation suit against the TV channel Reporter, alleging that they broadcast false reports linking him to a controversial land deal. This lawsuit raises crucial questions about media accountability and journalistic ethics in the region.
Key Takeaways
- Rajeev Chandrasekhar has filed a Rs 100 crore defamation suit.
- The suit targets the TV channel Reporter and its owner.
- Chandrasekhar claims the channel aired false reports.
- The allegations are linked to a disputed land deal involving BPL.
- BPL Limited has refuted the claims as unfounded.
Thiruvananthapuram, Oct 30 (NationPress) The President of the Kerala BJP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, has initiated a defamation lawsuit worth Rs 100 crore against the television channel Reporter. He claims that the channel has disseminated a series of misleading and damaging reports associating him with a disputed land deal.
This legal action targets nine individuals, including the channel's owner, Anto Augustine, and several prominent journalists.
The lawsuit was filed through RHP Partners, a legal firm based in Mumbai.
Chandrasekhar’s complaint states that Reporter TV, based in Kochi, continually broadcasted false news tying him to a land transaction involving BPL, despite his lack of any connection to the company.
According to the legal notice, these reports were intended to tarnish his reputation and abuse his status as the BJP State President.
The notice also demanded that the channel retract the untrue reports and publicly apologize within a week; otherwise, he would pursue further legal recourse.
In response, BPL Limited issued a statement categorically rejecting the allegations as “completely unfounded and factually incorrect.”
The company emphasized that previous claims of irregularities regarding the allotment of industrial land had been dismissed by the Supreme Court back in 2003.
“The current allegations are false and lack any legal standing,” BPL declared.
Chandrasekhar’s action represents one of the most significant defamation claims by a political figure in Kerala in recent years.
This lawsuit arises amidst ongoing discussions about accountability and ethics in regional television journalism.
The BJP leader asserted that he would not stand for efforts to disseminate false information or damage his personal and political image through fabricated media narratives.
A former Union Minister of State, Chandrasekhar faced a tough electoral contest against three-time incumbent Congress MP Shashi Tharoor in the Thiruvananthapuram Lok Sabha seat during the last general elections.
Tharoor narrowly won by around 15,000 votes, a significant decrease from his nearly one lakh vote margin in the 2019 elections.
Since then, Chandrasekhar's stature within the party has significantly increased, leading to his unexpected appointment as the president of the state unit.
Point of View
It is essential to recognize the implications of such a high-profile defamation case. The legal action taken by Rajeev Chandrasekhar against the Reporter channel underscores the critical balance between media freedom and responsible journalism. The case highlights the need for accurate reporting, especially when it concerns public figures, and raises pertinent questions about accountability and ethics in journalism, which should be a priority for all news outlets.
NationPress
30/10/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the basis of Rajeev Chandrasekhar's defamation suit?
Rajeev Chandrasekhar's defamation suit is based on allegations that the TV channel Reporter broadcasted false reports linking him to a controversial land deal, which he claims are completely untrue.
Who else is being sued in the defamation case?
The lawsuit includes nine individuals, notably the channel's owner Anto Augustine and several prominent journalists.
What does Chandrasekhar demand from the channel?
Chandrasekhar demands that the channel retract the false stories and issue a public apology within seven days, or he will pursue additional legal action.
How has BPL Limited responded to the allegations?
BPL Limited has dismissed the allegations as entirely baseless and stated that previous claims against them were dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2003.
What does this legal action signify for journalism in Kerala?
This legal action signifies a growing concern over the accountability and ethics of journalism in Kerala, highlighting the need for responsible reporting among media outlets.
