The Court must carefully consider whether the statements/imputations made constitute defamation as defined under Section 499 of the IPC and whether the defamatory statement has a direct and reasonable nexus with the discharge of public functions of the public servant/constitutional functionary.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: PETITIONS under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to G.O.Ms.Nos.573, 574, 748 & 537 of 2023 respectively dated 26.9.2023, 02.9.2023, 30.11.2023 and 02.9.2023 passed by the first respondent and the consequential complaints respectively in C.C.Nos. 3, 2, 4 & 1 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram.)

Common Order:

1. The issues involved in all these writ petitions are common. Hence, the basic issues raised will be answered and applied to the facts of each case and the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the respective Government Orders passed by the first respondent according sanction to the Public Prosecutor for making complaints under Sub-Section (2) of Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, the Code) against the petitioner for the alleged defamatory speech made against the Hon'ble Chief Minister, which constitutes an offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, the IPC), punishable under Section 500 of the IPC and the consequential complaints filed before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, which have been taken cognizance and in which, summons have been issued to the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in all the writ petitions and the learned Advocate General assisted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents in all the writ petitions.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned Government Orders have been issued without any application of mind and are, per se, arbitrary and illegal. He further submitted that the petitioner, as a member belonging to the opposition party, criticized the Government headed by the Chief Minister on certain important issues, that such criticism cannot be prevented by initiating defamation cases and that it will tantamount to throttling the voice of the opposition. He also submitted that there is absolutely no nexus in the statements made by the petitioner with the discharge of public functions/official duties of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and that therefore, the requirements under Sections 199(2) and 199(4) of the Code have not been fulfilled.

5. In order to substantiate the above submissions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon

(i) the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.K.Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [reported in 2018 (6) SCC 676]; and

(ii) the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Thiru N.Ram, Editor in Chief, Printer & Publisher 'The Hindu' Kasturi & Sons Ltd. Vs. Union of India rep.by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Law & Company Affairs [reported in 2020 SCC On-Line Madras 1023].

6. Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in each Government Order that was issued, the first respondent has taken into account the material placed by the Inspector General of Police, Intelligence, SBCID, Chennai and found that it contained imputations, which are, per se, defamatory against the Hon'ble Chief Minister in the discharge of his public functions, that the same is clearly reflected in the respective Government Orders themselves and that there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the impugned Government Orders.

7. The learned Advocate General further submitted that in each case, the imputations were highly scandalous and defamatory, that it was directed against the Chief Minister in the discharge of his official functions, that the same is evident on a mere reading of those imputations extracted in the complaints, that there is a prima facie material to proceed further with the complaints and that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere w