CM's Time in Office is 'Public Function': Calcutta HC Upholds Defamation Case for Republishing Book Excerpts

Kolkata, India – The Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling with wide-ranging implications for online speech and defamation law, has declined to quash criminal defamation proceedings against lawyer Koustav Bagchi. The case stems from Bagchi's online publication of excerpts from a book that delves into the personal life of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, including claims of a clandestine marriage.

Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, in the order dated June 18, 2025, affirmed the trial court's decision to issue summons to Bagchi. The judgment meticulously navigates the complex intersection of a public official's private life and their public functions, ultimately endorsing a broad interpretation of what constitutes an act "in the discharge of official duties." This decision reinforces the legal principle that republishing potentially defamatory material carries the same liability as its original publication.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy began when Koustav Bagchi allegedly uploaded portions of a 2015 book onto social media platforms. The book in question makes the contentious claim that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had secretly married an individual named Ghosh before taking office. A key part of the excerpt shared by Bagchi was a letter, purportedly written by the book's author to the Chief Minister in 2012.

This letter questioned the presence and capacity of the same individual, Ghosh, at the Chief Minister's oath-taking ceremony on May 20, 2011, and his prior presence in her official chamber. Following Bagchi's online posts, which allegedly included his own commentary on the Chief Minister's personal life, the Public Prosecutor initiated a criminal complaint.

Invoking the special privilege afforded to ministers under Section 222(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Public Prosecutor filed a complaint for criminal defamation under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). After a hearing, the Chief Judge of the City Sessions Court in Calcutta took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to Bagchi, prompting him to file a revisional application before the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings.

Arguments Before the High Court

Senior Advocate Rajdeep Mazumdar, representing Bagchi, mounted a multi-pronged defense. He argued that the book, published years ago, had never been banned or restricted by the government, implying a tacit acceptance of its circulation. Mazumdar contended that Bagchi had merely reproduced a copy of the letter from the book and that such an act should not attract punishment for criminal defamation.

The cornerstone of the defense, however, was the argument that the allegations, even if deemed defamatory, pertained strictly to the Chief Minister's personal life—her marital status—and were not connected to the discharge of her official duties. Consequently, Mazumdar argued, the Public Prosecutor lacked the standing to file a complaint under the special provisions of the BNSS, a procedure reserved for defamation concerning public functions.

The State countered forcefully, asserting that a court's role at the cognizance stage is not to conduct a "mini-trial" but to assess the existence of prima facie materials. The State's counsel also accused Bagchi of habitually maligning heads of state and argued that procedural mechanisms for discharging an accused are not available in a summons case under the CrPC (now BNSS).

High Court's Findings: A Broad Scope for 'Public Function'

Justice Apurba Sinha Ray’s judgment critically dissected the distinction between personal matters and public functions. While the court acknowledged that the alleged secret marriage was a personal matter, it found the connection to the CM's official capacity in the questions raised about the oath-taking ceremony and the presence of a private individual in her official chamber.

The court’s reasoning on this point is pivotal. It established a strong presumption that a Chief Minister's activities within her official chambers are in furtherance of her public duties. The judgment states:

“Neither the term 'public function' nor its nature nor its degree has been defined anywhere in the Code. Therefore, broadly speaking, each and every second of Hon'ble Chief Minister's presence in her chamber is for the discharge of her official duties, and to prove that while she was in her office she was acting beyond her official duties, is upon the person who claims so.”

This interpretation effectively shifts the burden of proof onto the accused to demonstrate that a public official was acting in a purely private capacity while in their office. The court concluded that any meeting in the CM's office is "deemed to have been arranged for official purpose unless the contrary is proved," thereby bringing the allegations within the ambit of her public functions and validating the Public Prosecutor's complaint.

The Peril of Republication

The court also decisively rejected the argument that Bagchi was shielded from liability because he was merely republishing material from an existing, unbanned book. Relying on established precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, Justice Ray held that republication is a fresh cause of action for defamation.

“From the above it is transpired that republication of defamatory imputations makes the person liable in the same manner like the original author. Every re-publication of such material gives rise to a new cause of action and therefore, even no action is taken when the same was originally published, the same cannot be a ground for the subsequent publisher, who does it on his own peril, to avoid the rigours of law, and, therefore, he is under a legal duty to justify his action,” the court observed.

This finding serves as a stark warning to individuals and media entities on social media: the failure of authorities to act against an original publisher provides no immunity for subsequent disseminators. Each act of sharing or republishing constitutes a new, independent publication that must be legally justifiable on its own merits.

Interestingly, the court also noted a detail from the original book itself: the author had included a disclaimer specifying that the book should not be printed, published, or distributed without his permission. The court reasoned that this "embargo" created by the author himself further weakened any claim that the content was freely available for reproduction.

Conclusion and Legal Implications

In dismissing Bagchi’s plea, the Calcutta High Court affirmed the trial court's order, finding "no infirmity or irregularity" that would warrant interference. The court clarified that its observations were tentative and for the sole purpose of deciding the revisional application.

This judgment has significant legal ramifications:

• Expanded Definition of Public Function: By broadly defining "public function" to encompass nearly all of a Chief Minister's time in her official chambers, the court has lowered the threshold for the State to initiate defamation proceedings on behalf of high public functionaries. This could potentially be used to stifle criticism that blurs the line between the personal and the political.
• Strict Liability for Online Republication: The ruling solidifies the legal risk associated with sharing content online. It underscores that the "it was already out there" defense holds no water in defamation law. Every share, retweet, or repost can be treated as a new publication, exposing the user to potential legal action.
• Procedural Rigidity: The decision highlights the difficulty of getting criminal defamation cases quashed at the preliminary stage, reinforcing the "prima facie" standard at the time of taking cognizance and placing a heavy burden on the petitioner to show a clear legal bar to the proceedings.

For legal professionals, this case serves as a crucial reminder of the enduring potency of criminal defamation law in the digital age and the judiciary's evolving interpretation of public life in an era of constant scrutiny. The trial against Koustav Bagchi will now proceed, where the merits of the defamatory claims will be tested through evidence and arguments.

Case Title: Koustav Bagchi v. The State of West Bengal and Another Case Number: CRR 2817 of 2025