SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Dr. S. Ramadoss - Appellant
Versus
Murasoli Trust, Rep. by its Trustee, R.S. Bharathi, Chennai - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 6763 of 2020 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 3711 of 2020 & 2680 of 2021
Decided On : 05-12-2023

Advocates appeared:For the Petitioner:Anantha Narayanan, Senior Counsel, K. Balu, Advocates. For the Respondent:N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel, S. Manuraj, Advocate.

The twits made by the petitioner did not constitute the offence of defamation under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC.

Headnote:

Defamation - Freedom of Speech - Sections 499 & 500 of IPC - The court discussed the twits made by the petitioner and the respondent's political party leader, and the legal provisions under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC. The court analyzed the twits and their potential to harm the reputation of the respondent, and referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manoj Kumar Tiwari Vs. Manish Sisodia & ors. The court concluded that the impugned complaint cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.1280 of 2020.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a private complaint for defamation against the petitioner based on twits made by the petitioner on his official twitter account. The petitioner raised questions and demanded to produce the parent document of the subject property, in which the respondent trust is situated.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the twits made by the petitioner did not constitute the offence of defamation under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC. The court concluded that the impugned complaint cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.1280 of 2020.

Issues: The key issue was whether the twits made by the petitioner constituted the offence of defamation under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the twits and their potential to harm the reputation of the respondent, and referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manoj Kumar Tiwari Vs. Manish Sisodia & ors. The court concluded that the impugned complaint cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.1280 of 2020.

Final Decision: The impugned complaint was quashed, and the proceedings in C.C.No.1280 of 2020 were closed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in C.C.No.1280 of 2020 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai District and quash the same.)

1. This petition has been filed to quash the compliant lodged by the respondent in C.C.No.1280 of 2020 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai District, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC, as against the petitioner.

2. The respondent filed private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC. The crux of the allegations in the complaint is that the respondent owns, prints and publishes the daily newspaper Murasoli. The petitioner is the founder of a political party and he manages a twitter handle under the name and style of Dr.S.Ramadoss with URL http://twitter.com/drramadoss (hereinafter after called as “official twitter account”). The petitioner twitted from his official twitter account on 17.10.2019. Further he also twitted four twits from his official twitter account on 19.10.2019 at about 12.07 p.m. Once again he twitted from his official twitter account on 19.11.2019 at 8.39 p.m.

3. According to the respondent, the contents of the twits are false, baseless, untrue and per se defamatory. It constitutes a calculated attempt to malign the reputation of the respondent. The constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions, which includes defamation as such, the action of the petitioner falls beyond the scope of freedom of speech. He is seeking political mileage and his ulterior motive is apparent from the twits made by him against the respondent's political party. There is no bona fide reason for raising this issue by way of twitter. Therefore, the respondent has suffered immeasurable mental agony and the reputation of the Murasoli Trust has been degraded, tarnished and smeared due to the twits made by the petitioner.

4. Therefore, the respondent caused legal notice dated 22.11.2019, thereby called upon the petitioner to remove the above defamatory twits dated 17.10.2019, 19.10.2019 & 19.11.2019. Further tender an open and unconditional apology within 48 hours from the date of receipt of the notice and refrain from repeating such unethical acts in future. After receipt of the same, the petitioner issued reply notice containing untrue and defamatory statement. Hence the respondent lodged the present complaint. On receipt of the complaint, the trial Court had taken cognizance in C.C.No.1280 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC and issued summons to the petitioner.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complaint filed by the respondent is not at all maintainable under penal law, since the trust has no right to question the twits made by the petitioner. The trust is not a legal entity to make a complaint for defamation before the Court of law. The petitioner being the founder and leader of the political party, relentlessly fighting for securing social justice for all section of people and to eradicate poverty to provide free education for children and to eliminate corruption from public life and politics. He is the one to critically analyze the policies, acts and deed of the Governments in power and of various organizations in public domain including political parties and makes unbiased, impartial and constructive comments on the functioning of such entities in the larger interest of and the welfare of citizens of the country.

5.1. He further submitted that the rival political party leader had seen a Tamil movie “Asuran” and had twitted that the film is not a movie, but a lesson. Therefore, the petitioner had twitted that he believed that the panchami land has to be returned by the respondent trust by learning lesson from the said movie, since there has been a consistent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top