The right to dissent and criticize public officials is protected under freedom of speech, and such speech does not constitute defamation unless it disrupts public order.

ORDER :

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 01 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.

2. On the complaint lodged by the respondent, the trial Court had taken cognizance for the offence under Section 499 of IPC punishable under Section 500 of IPC, alleging that the petitioner is a sitting member of the parliament (Rajya Sabha) and while staging a demonstration organized by this Party near Thiruvallur Statue, Villupuram on 20.07.2023, had delivered a speech defaming the Chief Minister of Taminadu and the Government of Tamilnadu in a derogatory manner, with an intention to cause loss of reputation of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamilnadu in the discharge of his duties as Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. The said utterances are malicious and defamatory in nature and addressed to a gathering of 1000 persons over a public address system.

3. The gist of the portion of speech is that, they would not say that the present Chief Minister as a performing Chief Minister, that he is simply sitting in the office and he is a puppet minister who is activated by powerful forces, looting forces, the forces exploiting Tamil Nadu, that by calling the Government as Dravida Model M.K. Stalin is administering the Government of thieves and that is not a Dravida Model but the Model Government of thieves. Further, the Chief Minister who is the administering the Government does not know what is administration and does not know how to proceed. He does not know anything what is happening in the State and does not know anything about who is doing the things. He comes with a dhoti and a shirt in the morning and takes a tea and snacks that’s all. The Government is administered only by the shadow Chief Minister. Therefore, it is highly objectionable defamatory, derogatory besides being false and harms and defames the reputation of the Chief Minister and the Government of Tamilnadu.

4. Mr. Vijay Narayan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had participated in a lawful protest staged by his party on 20.07.2023 near Thiruvallur Statue, Villupuram thereby condemning the rise of prices in goods, especially essential commodities. He had spoken in detail and the efficiency with which the scheme where reached to the people of Tamil Nadu during their regime. He had also drawn the contrast to show how badly the present Government had failed in lots of departments especially in controlling the immense rise in prices of essential goods and commodities in the State of Tamil Nadu.

5. In order to file a complaint, the respondent was accorded sanction by the Government in G.O.Ms.62 of 2024 dated 05.01.2024 under Section 199 (4)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . Immediately, thereafter the complaint has been filed. In fact, for the very same alleged speak, a FIR was registered in Crime No.239 of 2023 on 21.07.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 153, 294(b), 506(1), 504 of IPC on the file of the West Police Station, Villupuram. It has been challenged before this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 1262 of 2024 and this Court, by an order dated 02.02.2024 stayed the further proceedings. These cases are nothing but politically motivated one that are completely unsustainable. In a democracy, it is the role of the opposition to point out the failures of the Government and the shortcomings in a more expressive manner so that the people in power are aware of the public sentiments. The opposition has the responsibility to point out the failures of the policies of the majority in power and be the voice of the people in wider public platforms and the official gathering such as the legislative assembly.

6. Mr. A. Gopinath, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the speech which was spoken by the petitioner is clearly attract the offence under Section 499 of IPC and as such the petitioner is liable to be punished for