Defamation Claim: Rajendra Dassruth Loses Again Against Le Défi Media Group

A defamation lawsuit filed by Rajendra Prasad Dassruth against Le Défi Quotidien and its director, Ehshan Kodarbux, has been rejected by the Supreme Court. The disputed article reported accusations made by disciples rather than established facts. The judge determined that the publication served the public interest.

Rajendra Prasad Dassruth, also known as Swami Paramananda, was disavowed by the Supreme Court, which dismissed his second action against Femi Publishing Co. Ltd and Ehshan Kodarbux, currently the director of the Défi Media Group. He claimed damages of Rs 2 million for harm suffered due to an article published in April 2012 in Le Défi Quotidien, which he deemed defamatory.

The incriminating article titled "It Also Happened" reported that a group of disciples accused the swami of having sexual relations with several young women under his spiritual influence. It also cited a testimony from a certain "Sweety" (name changed), who claimed to have been "deceived" by Rajendra Prasad Dassruth, whom she regarded as a divine figure.

The article also included spiritual explanations provided by the plaintiff before an internal committee of the Lao Tzu Meditation Centre, where he purportedly justified these relationships within a religious framework. In his complaint, the swami argued that these remarks portrayed him as a sexual manipulator abusing his status as a spiritual master.

Known internationally as an author of around twenty works and a speaker, Rajendra Prasad Dassruth contended that the defendants exhibited negligence in publishing such allegations. He claimed that these accusations damaged his reputation and constituted a civil fault under articles 1382 and 1383 of the Civil Code.

The defendants, for their part, argued good faith, asserting they conducted checks before publication and maintained that the goal was to inform the public about a matter of general interest involving a religious figure.

Relying on jurisprudence, Judge Véronique Kwok Yin Siong Yen emphasized that to determine if a fault was committed, one must analyze not only the words used but also their context and how a reasonable reader would understand the article.

In this specific case, the phrase "was accused" was central. It is read as follows: the plaintiff "was accused" of having sexual relations with several young women considered his disciples. According to her, a reasonable reader clearly understands that the article reports accusations and not established facts. "The one and only meaning that the readers of the newspaper as reasonable men should have collectively understood the impugned article to mean is that the plaintiff was being accused of immoral acts and not that the plaintiff in fact committed the immoral acts," she noted.

During the trial, Rajendra Prasad Dassruth himself acknowledged that a SGAS meeting on December 30, 2011, was the stage for allegations made by his own disciples. He also admitted that when public interest facts concern a prominent figure, the public has "the right to know."

These elements weighed heavily. The judge found that by reporting accusations genuinely made within the religious association, the newspaper acted neither negligently nor recklessly.

Additionally, Judge Véronique Kwok Yin Siong Yen wrote in her judgment: "After taking into consideration the actual words published and the context in which they were published as well as the own admission of the plaintiff (NdlR, Rajendra Prasad Dassruth) to the effect that allegations which were reported in the newspapers were indeed made against him by his disciples together with the fact that the plaintiff agreed that the public should be informed of matters involving prominent figures, I fail to see in what manner the defendants have been negligent or imprudent in publishing the impugned article."

In her view, Rajendra Prasad Dassruth thus failed to prove his case on the balance of probabilities. Consequently, the religious leader's complaint was dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendants. In this trial, the plaintiff was represented by Messrs. Jacques Tsang Man Kin and Gautam Ramdoyal (advocate), while the defendants were defended by Messrs. Yashley Reesaul and Pravind Nathoo (advocate).

The First Action of the Spiritual Priest Rejected by the Supreme Court
On December 16, 2022, Rajendra Prasad Dassruth saw one of his actions rejected by the Supreme Court. This was a contempt motion he filed against Le Défi Media Group. He claimed that the group’s director, Ehshan Kodarbux, and former journalist Abhi Ramsahaye did not respect the rule of "sub judice."

In her decision, Judge Rita Teelock ruled that "Le Défi Media Group committed no contempt of court." On one side, there is the freedom of expression, a fundamental principle in a democracy. On the other, there is the authority and impartiality of justice, which are necessary in such a society. For the judge, the court must consider these two points while respecting the principle of proportionality.

In this case, there were the publication of two articles (see box). For the judge, the question was to determine whether the defendants (namely the director of Le Défi Media Group, Ehshan Kodarbux, and former journalist Abhi Ramsahaye) were subject to the prohibition of publishing content related to a defamation complaint against them before the Supreme Court.

In his motion, Rajendra Prasad Dassruth asserted that the defendants committed contempt of court. This motion was filed on July 26, 2013, before the Supreme Court. For the judge, it is important to determine whether the time that this complaint took prevents the defendants or any other media from referencing the incidents reported in the first article published by Le Défi Plus in its edition from February 25 to March 2, 2012.

Another point raised by the judge: the defamation complaint filed by the plaintiff cannot be used as an impediment against the defendants. She believes that "any media coverage is a matter of degree and specificity. Here, the second article did not comment in any way on the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff and attempted to influence the decision of the court. It is evident that both articles were events of public interest." Judge Teelock concludes that there is no rule preventing publication or comment simply because the matter is before a court. For her, the content of the comment and publication is crucial and must not exceed certain limits.

The Two Relevant Articles

• The first was published by Le Défi Plus in its edition from February 25 to March 2, 2012. It was titled: "A Whiff of Scandal at SGAS: Sex, Money, and Religion."
• The second was published by Le Dimanche/L’Hebdo in its edition from October 14 to 20, 2012. It was titled: "Alleged Fraud: Swami Paramananda Under Investigation by CCID."