Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8862
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
DR MOHAMMED SADIQUE K P – Appellant
Versus
K M ABDUL MUTHALIF – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 7421/2019
Posthumous reputation protection is significant, and authorities must ascertain their jurisdiction over defamation claims before proceeding.
Headnote:
Misuse - Reputation - None - The court emphasized the protection of reputation posthumously, directing prompt consideration of the petitioner's representation regarding alleged misuse.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief against the misuse of his deceased father's name and reputation by certain respondents, claiming defamation and emotional distress caused by this misuse in political campaigns.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the first respondent to expedite the consideration of the petitioner's representation regarding the reputation issues raised, insisting on assessment of jurisdiction regarding such complaints.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to have his representation regarding defamation considered by the first respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the first respondent must ascertain its jurisdiction to entertain the defamation-related complaint before addressing the merits of the case.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed, directing consideration of petitioner's representation.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
“I. to call for the records leading to Exhibits P1 to P4 and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take immediate and appropriate steps to prevent misuse of name, photographs, videos and fame of petitioner's father by respondents 5 to 7 and their workers and followers in posters, meetings, campaigns etc by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order.
II. To declare that the respondents 5 to 7 and their men have no right to misuse or publish name, photographs, videos and fame of petitioner's father in their posters, meetings, campaigns, etc.”
III. Alternatively to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and pass immediate orders based on Exhibits P2 and P4 representations by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order.
IV. To grant such other reliefs in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant.”
2. Petitioner is a native of Lakshadweep islands. He is the son of late Dr.K.K.Mohammed Koya, who was the former president of Janata Dal(United), Lakshadweep unit.
3. According to the petitioner, respondents 5 to 7 are misusing the name, photographs, videos and fame of late Dr.K.K.Mohammed Koya, affecting the reputation and the legal rights of the deceased, which the deceased continue to have even after his death. It is also pointed out that, such misuse and publication amounts to defamation imputing ideologies which the deceased never followed or accepted, and would have harmed his reputation, if alive. The deceased would not have allowed such a wrong misuse presenting his name and fame, if he was alive. The publication and misuse is also intended to be hurtful to the feelings of the family members and other near relatives, including the wife of the deceased as well as the petitioner.
4. Therefore, the imputation by a political party in which the deceased was never a member, harms the reputation of the deceased in the estimation of others and lowers the moral and intellectual character of the deceased. Anyhow, seeking to ventilate the grievances, petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 before the 1st respondent. The sole direction sought for is consideration of Ext.P4.
5. The 1st respondent has filed a statement stating that, Ext.P4 representation is pending consideration before the commission and the same will be disposed of in accordance with law, expeditiously.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Lakshadweep administration submitted that, a suit, O.S No.8/2018 is filed by the wife and daughter of late Dr.K.K.Mohammed Koya, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against respondents 6 and 7 and their men from utilizing the name of Dr.K.K.Mohammed Koya in election campaigns in any manner, which is pending consideration before the Munsiff's Court, Androth.
7. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel submitted that, the interlocutory application submitted by the plaintiffs in the suit was dismissed.
8. I have heard respective counsel across the Bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.
9. The sole question to be considered is, whether petitioner is entitled to get Ext.P4 considered by the 1st respondent. It is true, the 1st respondent has stated that Ext.P4 is pending consideration and a decision will be taken in Ext.P4 at the earliest possible time. However, the question is, whether there is power vested with the 1st respondent to consider any application like Ext.P4, since the subject issue raised by the petitioner is in respect of reputation and defamation, etc. etc. of late Dr. K.K.Mohammed Koya. Anyhow, it is a matter to be decided by the 1st respondent.
10. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to finalize Ext.P4 application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
11. I also make it clear that, the 1st respondent shall first ascertain whether there is jurisdiction conferred on th
