The Madras High Court recently reserved its judgment on a significant appeal filed by retired IPS officer G. Sampath Kumar. This appeal challenges a previous refusal by a single judge to dismiss a substantial ₹100-crore defamation lawsuit initiated by former Indian cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni. The case continues to draw considerable public interest due to the high-profile individuals involved and the substantial sum sought in damages.
A division bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and M. Jothiraman heard detailed arguments from both sides before deferring their verdict. Senior counsel P.R. Raman represented M.S. Dhoni, while advocate R.C. Paul Kanagaraj argued on behalf of the retired IPS officer. This appeal specifically targets a 2021 order from a single judge.
Understanding the Case
The origin of this legal battle dates back to 2014 when Mr. Dhoni filed the defamation suit. He sought ₹100 crore in damages, alleging that his name was unfairly dragged into the Indian Premier League (IPL) betting scam. The lawsuit targeted Zee Media Corporation, journalist Sudhir Chaudhary, then-IPS officer G. Sampath Kumar, and News Nation Network.
In 2021, Mr. Kumar attempted to have Dhoni’s lawsuit rejected, but his application was dismissed by Justice N. Seshasayee (now retired). The judge cited the considerable delay of seven years in filing the application, noting it was brought forward just as the trial was about to begin.
Justice Seshasayee critically observed that while procedural law generally allows such applications at any time, the court must ensure its process isn’t exploited to delay justice. He questioned why Mr. Kumar had waited so long, highlighting that issues had already been framed and the trial was scheduled to start.
Furthermore, the judge pointed out that Mr. Kumar’s reported exoneration in a departmental inquiry could serve as a defense during the trial itself, but it was not a valid reason to seek the outright rejection of the lawsuit before proceedings even commenced.
He emphasized the judiciary’s responsibility to manage caseloads efficiently and avoid contributing to delays. “The courts are required to remind themselves constantly that in a performance audit by the countrymen, the courts will stand alone to defend themselves without a defense for the delay in disposal of cases and pendency in litigations, unaided by any of the litigants or their counsel. Courts, therefore, have a duty to balance the procedural right of a litigant with their own duty to adjudicate the litigation, and to keep down the pendency, lest the court might be accused of granting judicial patronage for creating delay in justice dispensation,” Justice Seshasayee had stated.
Despite the dismissal of Mr. Kumar’s initial application in 2021, the defamation suit’s trial still faced delays. It was only on August 11, 2025, that Justice C.V. Karthikeyan finally ordered the commencement of the trial and appointed an advocate commissioner to record Mr. Dhoni’s evidence. Following this, Mr. Kumar filed the current appeal, also seeking to have the delay in challenging the 2021 order excused.