Pawan Kalyan gets legal notice for tweets on TV9 and Srini Raju, hits back

Actor-politician Pawan Kalyan, who had taken to Twitter to lash out at Telugu media outlets over the past week, was served a notice from entrepreneur Srini Raju, a shareholder in Associated Broadcasting Company Private Ltd (ABCL), the parent company of TV9 Telugu.

Earlier this week, Pawan had released a list of shareholders of the company and tweeted, “Srini Raju owns 88.69% of TV9. Investors who make money out of slander campaigns on public misery will understand in the days to come what they have done.”

He also claimed that Srini Raju was related to tainted businessman Ramalinga Raju and controversial director Ram Gopal Varma.

In response to the tweets, Srini Raju’s advocate sent a legal notice to Pawan demanding deletion of the tweets, failing which ‘appropriate legal action’ would be taken.

Background

The entire incident began after actor Sri Reddy, who was hopping from TV studio to studio on the issue of sexual harassment in Tollywood, euphemistically dubbed ‘casting couch’, resorted to abusing Pawan Kalyan on TV.

Initially when the issue broke, Sri Reddy had resorted to stripping and staging a semi-nude protest in front of the Telugu Film Chamber of Commerce office on April 7. However, as things escalated, the actor abused Pawan Kalyan’s mother and showed him the middle finger on TV.

Pawan Kalyan had earlier alleged that Sri Reddy abused him at the behest of Andhra CM Chandrababu Naidu’s son and minister, Nara Lokesh. He also took offence at the coverage of the incident by the Telugu media, which repeatedly telecast Sri Reddy’s swear word and gesture.

The legal notice

Stating that the allegations were baseless, untrue and false, the notice from Srini Raju’s advocate states, “My client was hurt by your unwarranted and unjustified comments. You have come into politics promising better behaviour and good governance. If you make baseless allegations like any other politician, then what is the difference between you and them?”

The letter goes on to say: “My client is into the venture capital business for the past 18 years and he has invested in more companies than anyone in the Telugu states. He has been part of establishing institutions like the Indian School of Business (ISB), IIIT Hyderabad and IIIT Sri City among others.”

The notice also dismissed allegations that Srini Raju was involved in the management of TV9 Telugu.

“My client states that his venture capital fund has invested in ABCL, which operates TV9 brand, as an institutional fund. Venture capital funds as a practice do not participate in management of companies. Therefore, neither my client nor his fund have ever participated in TV9 management, or on the board. He did not even visit their office in the last 10 years. The fund investment period has expired and therefore in an exit process,” the notice stated.

The notice also denied that Srini Raju was related to Ram Gopal Varma, adding that Pawan Kalyan’s allegations were a ‘figment of imagination.’

“You are free to talk and engage with the people, but such engagement should be based on facts, nothing else. My client states that your tweets against him, which are devoid of factual information, have belied his hopes and expectations as well. However, you will still have the support of people who are looking for leaders who are different from others, provided you rely on facts before speaking, rather than hearsay,” the notice states.

Pawan reacts

Pawan responded in a letter saying, “A tweet in one’s Twitter account is one’s own expression of opinions, beliefs and feelings. I am rather surprised as to why and how your client has chosen to respond, through you, for a tweet in no way directed against your client.”

“There are no ‘insinuations’ against your client. In fact, it is your client’s figment of imagination and maybe perhaps, a feeling of guilty conscience,” the letter added.

Stating that he had made no baseless allegations, Pawan wrote, “All of this is a free expression of my feeling on my Twitter account, which can never in law, be a cause of action for anyone, either as indicated in your said communication or otherwise.”

“I am happy and grateful that your client had ‘hopes and expectations’ from me. Whatever be the obstructions, detractions or any other similar impediments, I will not get diverted from my goal and I will strive for the upliftment of all sections of society, from every kind of exploitation. I hope and trust you will advise your client appropriately and accordingly,” the letter concludes.