A political opponent’s challenge to a holder of public office that he would ‘expose’ the latter’s ‘scam’ will not amount to defamation
A political opponent’s challenge to a holder of public office that he would ‘expose’ the latter’s ‘scam’ will not amount to defamation
High constitutional functionaries, from the President of India to government ministers, need not rely on the state machinery to prosecute their defamation, the Supreme Court said in a judgment on Monday.
A constitutional functionary may choose to renounce his high-ranking recognition and take on the role of a private citizen to prosecute him over harmful comments made about his public functions in office.
Justice V. Ramasubramaniam, who wrote the judgment, also said that a political opponent’s challenge to a public office holder that he would “expose” the latter’s “scam” would not amount to defamation.
Justice Ramasubramaniam said that statements like ‘I will expose you’, ‘I will expose your corrupt practices’ and ‘I will expose the scam in which you are involved’ etc. are not defamatory in nature, unless there is something else . reasoned.
The judgment clarified the law by refusing to accept BJP leader Manoj Tiwari’s argument that Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia could not have filed a criminal defamation complaint against him in his personal capacity, but after obtaining prior approval from the government. The latter should have gone through the Public Prosecutor. ,
Mr Tiwari had appealed to the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court refused to quash a magistrate’s summons in 2019 on Mr Sisodia’s defamation complaint.
Mr Tewari had argued that Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided for a “special procedure” for the prosecution of Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Governors, Ministers or any other public servant for defamation. A public prosecutor had to do this for them after getting prior approval from the state or central government. The prosecutor then filed the complaint before a Sessions Court, which had special powers to hear and consider the matter.
On the other hand, Section 199 made it relatively easier for an ordinary citizen to fight defamation. A private person, unlike a constitutional functionary, was only required to file a complaint with the local magistrate, which Mr Sisodia did.
Justice Ramasubramaniam, sitting with Justice S Abdul Nazeer, who headed the bench, said a constitutional functionary or public servant can either choose to go through a special process or choose to contest it as a private citizen. One process did not negate the other.
The special procedure was “in addition to and not as an insult to the right that a public servant always had as a person. He never lost his authority because he became a public servant and only because of his duties.” charges relating to official discharge”.
The top court dismissed Mr. Tiwari’s challenge to the magistrate’s summons.
However, the court quashed the summons issued to BJP leader Vijender Gupta in the same case. Mr Sisodia complained that Mr Gupta tweeted 24 questions and made a statement that answers to earlier questions would reveal a “scam”.
“The claim made by a person involved in politics that answers to questions asked by him in public office by his rival will expose his scam cannot be. Actually It is said that there is intent to damage the reputation of the person holding the office,” argued Justice Ramasubramaniam.