The Madras High Court has allowed retired IPS officer G. Sampath Kumar to move three applications seeking safeguards around the recording of MS Dhoni’s evidence in the cricketer’s ₹100 crore defamation suit linked to the 2013 IPL betting scandal.
Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi on Tuesday directed the Registry to number the applications after Kumar’s counsel argued that the pleas were maintainable in light of a Supreme Court order in a similar case. The court also made it clear that Dhoni will have an opportunity to respond once the applications are numbered.
The development is the latest step in a long-running legal battle that began when Dhoni filed the civil suit in 2014.
What has G. Sampath Kumar asked the Madras High Court?
Kumar, who is one of the defendants in Dhoni’s ₹100 crore defamation suit, has sought three specific safeguards for the recording of the cricketer’s evidence.
First, he wants a judicial officer appointed to monitor the recording of Dhoni’s evidence by the court-appointed advocate commissioner.
Second, he has asked for the entire proceedings to be video recorded, with unedited and certified copies of the footage provided to both himself and the proposed judicial officer.
Third, Kumar wants Dhoni’s evidence to be recorded either on court premises or in a government building.
His counsel questioned why the proceedings should take place at a private location simply because Dhoni is a prominent cricketer.
“Just because he is a cricketer, the evidence should not be recorded in a five-star hotel or some private bungalow,” Kumar’s counsel submitted before the court.
Why does MS Dhoni’s evidence matter?
Dhoni’s evidence is part of the trial in his ₹100 crore civil defamation suit, which arose from allegations linking his name to the 2013 IPL betting scandal.
The suit was filed in 2014 against Kumar and several others, including Zee Media Corporation, journalist Sudhir Chaudhary and News Nation Network Private Limited.
The case has now reached the evidence stage, with the court having already made arrangements for Dhoni’s evidence to be recorded through an advocate commissioner rather than requiring him to appear before the Master’s Court.
Why is Dhoni’s evidence being recorded by an advocate commissioner?
The Madras High Court had ordered the commencement of the trial on August 11, 2025, and appointed advocate G. Jayasri as the court-appointed commissioner to record Dhoni’s evidence.
Kumar challenged that decision, but a Division Bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq dismissed his appeal on November 4, 2025.
The judges noted that requiring Dhoni to appear before the Master’s Court inside the High Court campus would involve elaborate security arrangements. The Bench therefore found no fault with the decision to have an advocate commissioner record his evidence elsewhere.
Kumar has now returned to the High Court seeking additional safeguards around that process.
What happens next in the case?
The immediate development is procedural rather than a final ruling on Kumar’s requests.
The Registry will first number the three applications. Dhoni will then be given an opportunity to file his counter-affidavit.
The High Court will subsequently consider Kumar’s requests for judicial monitoring, complete video recording and the location of the evidence proceedings.
For now, the court has allowed the applications to proceed; it has not granted Kumar the safeguards he has sought.