Why YouTuber Paid Rs 50 Lakh Compensation To Politician Apsara Reddy

In its recent ruling on Apsara Reddy v. Joe Micheal Praveen and Another, the Madras High Court has directed YouTuber Joe Michael Praveen to pay ₹ 50 lakh as compensation to Apsara Reddy, a celebrity speaker, journalist and AIADMK spokesperson for posting videos that were ‘defaming’ and ‘humiliating’. 

Apsara Reddy, an Indian trans woman politician, journalist and AIADMK’s star campaigner in 2021 filed a petition against YouTuber Joe Michael Praveen on grounds of defamation. She has worked with the BBC World Service, The Hindu, New Indian Express, Deccan Chronicle and others and writes about consumerism, politics, celebrity lifestyles and education. 

Earlier on January 4, Justice N Sathish Kumar ruled in favour of Reddy, who had told the court that YouTuber Joe Michael Praveen had continuously made defamatory posts against her. Upholding Reddy's right to privacy and Praveen's violation of the same, the court said, “The perusal of the entire defamatory statements particularly the contents in the videos, which is also extracted in the plaint, the statements are nothing but malicious and defamatory touching upon the privacy of any individual. Merely because a person has a right to post on YouTube, he cannot cross his limit encroaching upon the privacy of others.

Though the publication is a right, such a right is subject to reasonable restrictions and cannot be encroached upon the privacy of others. When such statements are surfaced, particularly on social media like YouTube touching upon the character, behaviour and personal life of any individual, it will have serious impact in that particular area. The very statements surfaced in the Youtube videos Ex.P.14, makes it clear that the same are objectionable and malicious statements have been made without any semblance of truth. Such statements perse defamatory with malicious content. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the first defendant (Praveen) is liable to pay the damages.”

What was the case?

In 2017, Reddy had submitted before the High Court that Praveen had posted defamatory content against her when she refused to work with him on a joint video programme. Praveen became "angry and started gossiping and circulating bad notions" about Reddy. In at least 10 YouTube videos cited in the petition, Praveen spoke in a derogatory manner about Apsara, which included questioning her character and mocking her sex-change.

Attributing her mental distress to the "defamatory" videos, Apsara asserted that she endured emotional suffering and depression, leading her to seek psychological counselling through multiple sessions. Furthermore, she contended that various significant programs, to which she had been invited, were abruptly cancelled as a consequence of the "slanderous videos."

The court concurred that Praveen's posts were, in fact, detrimental to Reddy's mental health and career, tarnishing her reputation. However, the court also pointed out that these videos were taken down by Google and Reddy had also, subsequently, given up the relief sought against it. 

Towards the end, the court alerted these platforms to be aware of such ‘malicious content’ that is posted and take liability to ensure it doesn't harm the concerned individual, in any form. Senior counsel V Raghavachari and advocate VS Sentil Kumar appeared for Reddy while Advocate G Balasubramanian of Leela & Co appeared for Praveen.