IMPORTANT POINT
Calling a person corrupt is per se defamatory and cannot be justified by resorting to Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 500, 504, 505(C) of IPC asserting that the accused made a statement in the Press Conference that the petitioner had not toured Kinnaur District more than 50 times during two years and had withdrawn T.A. Allowance of Rs. 12,54,145/-. He toured every district in his capacity as Vice President of Forest Corporation and had drawn the Travelling Allowance of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The petitioner indulged in corruption. The petitioner alleged in the complaint that these words amount to defamation as they lowered the estimation of the petitioner in the eyes of the public.

2. The learned Trial Court recorded the statements of the petitioner and his witnesses and thereafter held that the right of speech and expression is a fundamental right. The public has a right to know. The opposition has a right to criticize the ruling party and such criticism is essential for a vibrant democracy. Politicians should not be thin-skinned and hypersensitive. There was no mens rea. Hence, the complaint was dismissed.

3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present revision has been filed, asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to apply its mind to the controversy in issue. The statement amounted to defamation and did not fall within any of the exceptions. The petitioner is known for his honesty and integrity and his estimation has been lowered by the statement. The video recording of the statement was not referred to. The right to speech and expression is not absolute and is controlled by exceptions. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

4. I have heard Mr. Nitin Thakur and Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocates, for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service.

5. Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court misdirected itself while passing the order. It was wrongly held that the accused had a right to criticize the petitioner. The right of criticism does not extend to hurling abuses and defamation; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

6. I have given considerable thought to his submissions and have gone through the records carefully.

7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, that if any imputations of corruption are made against a person holding a high office, such a person has a right to approach the Court under Section 500 of IPC besides suing for damages. It was observed:

“104. It may be true, as repeatedly pointed out by Mr. Parasaran, that in a given situation, false and vexatious charges of corruption and venality may be maliciously attributed against any person holding a high office and enjoying a respectable status thereby sullying his character, injuring his reputation and exposing him to social ridicule with a view to spite him on account of some personal rancour, predilections and past prejudices of the complainant. In such a piquant situation, the question is what would be the remedy that would redress the grievance of the verily affected party? The answer would be that the person who dishonestly makes such false allegations is liable to be proceeded against under the relevant provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 - namely under Section 182, 211 or 500 besides becoming liable to be sued for damages.”

(Emphasis supplied)

8. In the present case, the statement made by the accused- respondent that the petitioner had withdrawn the excess amount can amount to criticism of the public official and exposure of his acts. However, to call a person corrupt lowers his estimation in the eyes of the public and is per se defamatory.

9. The learned Trial Court was swayed by Article