Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 9971
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J
DR. SHASHI THAROOR – Appellant
Versus
STATE & ANR. – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-1394/2020
A political party is a determinate and identifiable body, allowing its members to file defamation complaints, and the defense of good faith must be assessed during trial.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 500 - Defamation - Petition filed by a Member of Parliament challenging summons for defamation based on statements made at a public event - Complainant, a political party member, alleges defamation of the Prime Minister and the party - Court examines the maintainability of the complaint and the definition of 'aggrieved person' under Section 199 Cr.P.C. - The court finds that the statements made by the petitioner were prima facie defamatory and that the complainant, as a Vice President of the party, is an aggrieved person entitled to file the complaint. (Paras 1-49)
(B) Defamation - Essential ingredients - The court reiterates that defamation requires an imputation made with intent to harm or knowledge that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned - The context and understanding of the statement by an ordinary person are crucial in determining defamation. (Paras 13-14)
(C) Political parties as identifiable groups - The court holds that a political party is a determinate and identifiable body, allowing its members to file complaints for defamation. (Paras 36-41)
(D) Good faith defense - The court states that the defense of good faith and fair comment can only be determined during the trial, not at the pre-summoning stage. (Paras 19-20) (E)
Result: Petition dismissed; proceedings to continue in the trial court.
JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
1. A petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner/Dr. Shashi Tharoor, a Member of Parliament and leader of Indian National Congress, assailing order dated 27.04.2019 passed by learned ACMM-I, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi whereby the petitioner has been summoned for commission of offence under Section 500 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. In brief, on 28.10.2018, petitioner while addressing the audience at Bangalore Literature Festival made a defamatory imputation in following terms:
"... and this personality cult has not sat very well with many in the RSS establishment. There's an extraordinarily striking metaphor expressed by an unnamed RSS source to journalist Vinod Jose of The Caravan which I quote here, in which they express their frustration with their inability to curb Mr. Modi, And the man says, "Mr. Modi", he says is like a "scorpion sitting on a Shivling; you cannot remove him with your hand, and you cannot hit it with a chappal either."
Petitioner further stated :
"And if you think about it, that's a very profound understanding of the relationship. Because if you remove a scorpion with your hand you will get stung very badly, but if you hit a Shivling with a chappal, then you have undermined all the sacred tenets of the faith that you hold in that the scorpion is sitting on. So, ultimately, you live with it with seething frustration. That may well be a very interesting clue to therather complex dynamics that exist between the Hindutva movement and the Moditva expression of it."
3. A complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for commission of offence under Section 499/500 IPC was filed by respondent No.2/complainant, claiming to be one of the Vice President of Bharatiya Janata Party, Delhi Pradesh, an identified worker and supporter of Mr. Narendra Modi. Apart from being in politics, respondent No.2 also claimed to be a staunch devotee of Lord Shiva.
4. The case of respondent No.2/complainant is that Mr. Narendra Modi (Hon‟ble Prime Minister of India) is a supreme leader of the Party and the said statement made by the petitioner is baseless, unfounded, misleading and defamatory. While making the said statement, petitioner referred to an article published in a magazine, wherein some unknown RSS source had allegedly made the remarks in 2012, which may not be of consequence at that time, but the date on which the statement has been made by the petitioner in October, 2018 is deliberate, since then Mr. Narendra Modi was leading the country as Hon‟ble Prime Minister of India.The imputation is stated to have been made defaming Mr. Narendra Modi, hurting the sentiments of crores of devotees of Lord Shiva, both in and outside the country outraging their religious beliefs, apart from lowering down the credit and image of the complainant/respondent No.2, RSS, as well as tarnished the image of BJP, its leaders, supporters and workers in the eyes of general public.
5. The speech is claimed to be an intolerable abuse and absolute vilification of the faith of millions of devotees of Lord Shiva. Further, the said speech is stated to have been widely reported and is also available on various links of websites of newspapers and video clippings.
6. It is further the case of respondent No.2/complainant that since the media houses carried the stories and published the speech given by the petitioner, on 01.11.2018, one Sanjeev Khandari came to the party office to discuss some personal work and showed the clippings of the publication in presence of other persons and told respondent No.2 that he is associated with a bad party and said “Tum Bhajpa wale Modi ka fauz banke ghum rehe ho..ae dekho...Tumhara neta Modi bichu hai...dansh lega..bada jeherila inshaan hai wo..ab Bhajpa choddo..apni kaam dhanda mein dhyaan do”. As such, respondent No.2/complainant claims that the speech, which had been conveyed in the presence of other persons has lowere
