The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed its Registry to number three applications filed by retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer G. Sampath Kumar seeking specific safeguards for recording the evidence of cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhoni in a ₹100-crore defamation suit.
Dhoni filed the civil defamation suit in 2014 against Kumar and several others after the former police officer allegedly linked the cricketer’s name to the 2013 Indian Premier League (IPL) betting controversy. The latest proceedings relate to the manner in which Dhoni’s evidence will be recorded during the trial.
Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi passed the direction after the three applications were placed before the court by the Registry to determine whether they were maintainable. Kumar’s counsel argued that the prayers were legally permissible in view of an earlier Supreme Court order concerning a similar matter.
After examining the Supreme Court order, the judge was satisfied that such applications could be filed and directed the Registry to number them. The court also made it clear that Dhoni would be given an opportunity to file his counter-affidavit after the applications are formally numbered.
Algoritha Security Launches ‘Make in India’ Cyber Lab for Educational Institutions
Retired IPS Officer Seeks Judicial Monitoring
In his first application, Kumar has sought the appointment of a judicial officer to monitor the recording of Dhoni’s evidence by an advocate commissioner appointed by the court.
His second application seeks video recording of the entire evidence-recording proceedings. Kumar has further requested that unedited and certified copies of the video recording be provided to both himself and the judicial officer who may be appointed by the court.
The third application concerns the venue where Dhoni’s evidence is to be recorded. Kumar has asked that the proceedings take place either on court premises or inside a government building.
During the hearing, his counsel argued that Dhoni’s status as an internationally recognised cricketer should not result in the evidence being recorded at a private or high-end location. The counsel specifically opposed the possibility of recording the evidence at a five-star hotel or private bungalow.
Trial Ordered to Begin in 2025
The defamation case dates back to 2014, but the trial formally moved forward much later. On August 11, 2025, Justice C.V. Karthikeyan ordered commencement of the trial and appointed advocate G. Jayasri as a court-appointed commissioner to record Dhoni’s evidence.
Kumar challenged that order before a Division Bench of the High Court. However, Justices S.M. Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq dismissed his appeal on November 4, 2025.
While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench considered the practical difficulties associated with requiring Dhoni to appear before the Master’s Court within the High Court campus for recording his evidence.
Security Concerns Behind Commissioner’s Appointment
The Division Bench had observed that Dhoni’s physical presence at the Master’s Court would require elaborate security arrangements because of his public profile. The judges therefore found no apparent fault with the single judge’s decision to appoint an advocate commissioner to record his evidence at another location.
The latest applications filed by Kumar effectively seek additional safeguards around that process. His demands include judicial supervision, complete and unedited video documentation, certified copies of the recording and a government or court premises as the venue.
The court has not yet ruled on whether all the safeguards sought by Kumar will ultimately be granted. The immediate order only clears the way for the three applications to be formally numbered and considered.
Multiple Defendants in Dhoni’s Suit
Apart from Kumar, Dhoni has also named Zee Media Corporation, journalist Sudhir Chaudhary and News Nation Network Private Limited as defendants in the ₹100-crore defamation suit.
The case stems from allegations surrounding the 2013 IPL betting controversy and the alleged implication of Dhoni’s name in connection with it. The ongoing proceedings are focused on determining the claims and defences raised by the parties through the civil litigation.
With the three applications now cleared for consideration, Dhoni will have an opportunity to respond to Kumar’s requests. The High Court will subsequently decide whether judicial monitoring, full video recording, certified copies and the proposed venue restrictions should form part of the evidence-recording process.
The matter therefore remains pending, with the manner and location of Dhoni’s evidence recording likely to be an important issue as the long-running defamation litigation progresses.
