The Madras High Court on Tuesday (October 14, 2025) announced it has reserved its verdict on an appeal presented by retired IPS officer G. Sampath Kumar. This appeal challenges a single judge’s previous refusal to dismiss a substantial ₹100-crore defamation suit filed against him and others by former Indian cricket team captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni.
A Division Bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and M. Jothiraman concluded hearing arguments from both sides before deferring their judgment. Senior counsel P.R. Raman represented the cricketer, while advocate R.C. Paul Kanagaraj argued on behalf of the retired IPS officer, addressing the appeal against the 2021 court order.
The Background of the Case
The origins of this legal battle trace back to 2014, when Mr. Dhoni initiated the lawsuit in the High Court. He sought ₹100 crore in damages from Zee Media Corporation, journalist Sudhir Chaudhary, then-IPS officer Mr. Kumar, and News Nation Network. The suit alleged that his name was unfairly implicated in the Indian Premier League (IPL) betting scam, causing significant reputational harm.
In 2021, Mr. Kumar filed an application requesting the court to reject the cricketer’s complaint. However, Justice N. Seshasayee (now retired) dismissed this application on December 9, 2021. The judge cited that the application was filed seven years after the initial suit and just as the trial was set to begin.
While procedural law typically allows such applications at any stage, the single judge emphasized the court’s role in preventing the abuse of the judicial process. He noted that despite the absence of a strict time limit, courts must question why a litigant would wait so long to exercise such a right, especially on the eve of a trial. Justice Seshasayee further commented that the court’s responsibility extends beyond merely acknowledging procedural rights; it involves scrutinizing attempts to manipulate the legal system and cause undue delay.
The judge also clarified that Mr. Kumar’s reported exoneration in a departmental inquiry, while potentially a valid defense, was not sufficient grounds to seek the outright rejection of the complaint before the trial had even commenced.
Justice Seshasayee’s observations underscored the judiciary’s commitment to efficiency: “Courts are constantly reminded that in a public performance audit, they must stand alone in defending against delays and pendency in litigations, unaided by litigants or their counsel. Therefore, courts have a duty to balance a litigant’s procedural rights with their own duty to expedite adjudication and reduce caseloads, preventing any appearance of judicial patronage for delaying justice.”
Despite the dismissal of Mr. Kumar’s application in 2021, the trial in the defamation suit remained stalled. It was only on August 11, 2025, that Justice C.V. Karthikeyan ordered the trial to commence and appointed an advocate commissioner to formally record Mr. Dhoni’s evidence. Following this, Mr. Kumar initiated the current appeal, alongside a request to excuse the delay in challenging the 2021 order.