In a 2-1 decision, the three-member bench ruled that the statements by the two respondents were directed at Hindraf, and not at Uthayakumar (left in photo).
In addition, the court ruled that Hindraf has been declared an illegal organisation and it therefore had nolocus standi to pursue legal action.
Justice KN Segara pointed to two news reports published on Dec 7, 2007, before Uthayakumar's arrest under the Internal Security Act (ISA) six days later.
"It is blatantly clear that the alleged defamatory statements were not directed at him (the plaintiff)," Segara said.
Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim agreed with his view.
Dissenting judge Justice Hishamudin Mohd Yunus said a subsequent statement published by Star on Dec 15, 2007, quoted IGP Musa Hassan as referring to Uthayakumar as having links to terrorist organisations.
"The IGP was referring to the plaintiff and four others detained under the ISA," he said.
Hishamudin said he was not satisfied that the plaintiff's statement of claim was not sustainable, as ruled by the majority decision.
"The plaintiff ought to be given his day in the High Court to give evidence," he said.
Uthayakumar's counsel M Manoharan(left) praised Hishamudin for his judgment.
The dissenting judge, he added. was among the "few good souls" in the judiciary.
Yes I still read the Star but I don't believe a d@mn word they say!
Manoharan, who had been detained with Uthayakumar under the ISA, said AG Abdul Gani Patail should not have attempted to strike out the case.
If Gani (right) had proof of Uthayakumar's or Hindraf's 'terrorist links', he should have proved it in the course of the suit.
"Not a single shred of evidence shown so far back Musa's and Gani's claims," Manoharan said.
Disagreeing with the majority decision, Manoharan pointed out that the grounds for the ISA detention clearly stated that Uthayakumar had links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE), the Tamil separatist movement in Sri Lanka.
"(The claim against my client) is clearly defamatory and outrageous. It is terrible to say such things and put us behind bars for 514 days. Now they are preventhing Uthayakumar from having his day in court.
"There is no such thing as striking out a defamation suit unless it is plainly not sustainable, such as in the case of suing the wrong parties. But here, there is a case."
Uthayakumar said the authorities were trying to get away scot-free by wrongfully claiming that he had terrorist links, and later using this as a reason to detain him under the ISA.
"Terrorists go by the barrel of the gun. We as human rights lawyers go by the nib of our pens," he said.
He said that he has been denied justice, as he has not been allowed to pursue his suit in the High Court.
"I am a lawyer of 20 years' standing. If justice is not served on me, I dread to think what (kind of) justice the man-on-the-street will get."
In his statement of claim, Uthayakumar had said Musa's statementhad portrayed him as a terrorist and that he had intent to use violence to overthrow the government.
On Dec 6, 2007, Musa (left) wasreported to have said: "Of late, there have been indications that Hindraf is trying to seek support and help from terrorist groups."
A day earlier, Gani told the High Court in Shah Alam, when applying to reject bail for 31 Hindraf supporters charged with illegal assembly, that Hindraf representatives had met with LTTE members.
Uthayakumar's RM100 million defamation suit against Musa and Abdul Gani was initially heard by Judicial Commissioner Zabariah Mohd Yusof.
On April 8, 2009, she dismissed an application by the respondents to strike out the suit.