Back
1986 Supreme(Kar) 391
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Kulkarni
A.K.SUBBAIAH - Appellant
Versus
B.N.GARUDACHAR - Respondent
M. F. A. 2241 Of 1986
Decided On : 11/26/1986
Advocates Appeared :
RAVIVARMA KUMAR, UDAYA HOLLA
The judgment establishes the principle that freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions, and absolute privilege under Article 361a applies only to statements made on the floor of the House.
Headnote:
defamation - injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. - Article 19 (2) - Article 361a - freedom of speech and expression - reasonable restrictions - absolute privilege - balance of convenience - Specific Relief Act
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking an injunction restraining the defendant from making defamatory statements. The trial Court granted a temporary injunction, which was resisted by the defendant. The defendant argued for an unfettered freedom of speech and expression, absolute privilege under Article 361a, and the right to plead truth or justification as a defense.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the defendant's statements outside the House were defamatory and not protected by absolute privilege. The Court upheld the trial Court's decision to issue a temporary injunction, considering the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues involved the defendant's freedom of speech and expression, the scope of absolute privilege under Article 361a, and the entitlement to plead truth or justification as a defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions and limitations under Article 19 (2). Absolute privilege under Article 361a applies only to statements made on the floor of the House. The Court also emphasized the importance of protecting reputation and character, and the availability of injunctions under the Specific Relief Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial Court's decision to issue a temporary injunction.
( 1 ) BOTH the advocates submitted that the appeal itself may be disposed of on final merits. Accordingly, arguments on the final merits of the appeal are heard and the appeal is disposed of finally.
( 2 ) THIS is an appeal by defendant-5 against the order dated 12-8-1986 passed by the XI additional City Civil Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City, in O. S. No. 2055 of 1986, allowing. A. No. 1 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit alleging that defendant-5 bad made on the floor of the House a defamatory statement and that even thereafter he has been persisting in making public statements impeaching the character, integrity and honesty of the plaintiff. Hence he filed the suit seeking an injunction restraining the defendant No. 5 from making defamatory statements.
( 4 ) THE suit was resisted by defendant-5.
( 5 ) THE plaintiff filed. A. No. 1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. It was also resisted by defendant-5.
( 6 ) THE trial Court on circumspection of the material, granted the temporary injunction. Hence the appeal.
( 7 ) THAT a statement similar to the one found in Hindustan Times Weekly, Sunday, March 16, 1986, was made by defendant-5 on the floor of the House while he was a M. L. C. , is not disputed before me. That statement published in Hindustan Times Weekly, Sunday, March 16, 1986, in material particulars, reads as :
"he told this reporter yesterday evening that the police officer's sister living in Rayarkoppal village of Alur taluk in Hassan District arranges jobs transfers and postings in the police Department. Her accomplice is her husband, Narasimha Iyengar. Money collected in the deals are shared, one share going to the Chief Minister's wife herself. "
So, the statement contained in Hindustan Times Weekly, Sunday, March 16, 1986, itself goes to show that the said statement has been published in the Hindustan Times Weekly on account of defendant-5 telling the reporter of the said paper about it the previous day. So, the publication in the said Hindustan Times Weekly cannot be said to be the statement made by defendant-5, on the floor of the House. It is a statement made by him outside the House.
( 8 ) IT is clearly stated in paras 15 and 16 of the plaint that defendant-5 has been making public statements even in public places and outside the House impeaching the character, honesty and integrity of the plaintiff. The allegations made in para 16 of the plaint read as :
"the plaintiff submits that the 5th defendant herein is planning to publish some more false and defamatory statements in the news papers with a view to harassing the plaintiff and tarnishing the plaintiff's reputation and thereby cause mental agony to the plaintiff. Such further defamatory statements by the 5th defendant will cause further irreparable injury and damage to the plaintiff. The 5th defendant has no right whatsoever under law to make defamatory and malicious statements about the plaintiff herein. "
This is not denied specifically by defendant-5 in the written statement. The learned Counsel Shri Ravivarma Kumar for defendant-5 submitted that defendant-5 would make speeches attributing corrupt practices to the plaintiff. According to him, justification or truth would be his defence. Therefore it becomes clear that defendant-5 is going to make statements impeaching the character, integrity and honesty of the plaintiff, even in public places.
( 9 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel Shri Ravivarma Kumar, his client has got a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India to freedom of speech and expression. The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 is not an absolute and unlimited one. Merely because one has got right to freedom of speech and expression, it does not mean that one can go on talking anything about another. The right is always controlled by some corresponding duty.
( 10 ) A similar question arose in K. V. Rama
