Whether Statements Like 'I Will Expose Your Scam' Against A Minister is Defamatory?

 We do not know how a statement in a tweet that the answers of Respondent No. 1 to the questions posed by the Appellant will disclose his scam, can be said to be defamatory. We are afraid that even if a person belonging to a political party had challenged a person holding public office by stating "I will expose your scam", the same may not amount to defamation. Defamatory statement should be specific and not very vague and general. The essential ingredient of Section 499 is that the imputation made by the Accused should have the potential to harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made. Therefore, we are of the view that the statement made by Shri Vijender Gupta (A-5) to the effect "your answer will disclose your scam" cannot be considered to be an imputation intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of Respondent No. 1. {Para 60}

62. Though the High Court prima facie examined the tweets, it upheld the summoning order passed by the Magistrate, after simply extracting Section 499. The claim made by a person involved in politics that the answers provided by his rival in public office to the questions posed by him, will expose his scam, cannot be per se stated to be intended to harm the reputation of the person holding office. The statements such as "I will expose you", "I will expose your corrupt practices" and "I will expose the scam in which you are involved, etc." are not by themselves defamatory unless there is something more.

63. In view of the above, the appeal filed by Shri Vijender Gupta (A-5) is liable to succeed on the sole ground that the statements contained in his tweets cannot be said to be defamatory within the meaning of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2022 

Decided On: 17.10.2022

Manoj Kumar Tiwari  Vs. Manish Sisodia and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.

Author:V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1349/2022

Print Page

Whether the accused can seek quashing of prosecution on the ground that he made imputation for the public good?

The only contention which is sought to be canvassed

to challenge the proceedings is that the offence under

Section 499 I.P.C. is not made out inasmuch as the case is

covered under the first exception to the section which

provides that if the imputation is made for public good,

the same would not amount to defamation.

11. Defamation i.e. an injury to a person's reputation, is

both a crime and a civil wrong. In a civil action for

defamation in tort, truth is a defence, but in a criminal

action, the accused would be required to prove both the

truth of the matter and also that its publication was for

public good and no amount of truth would justify a

defamatory act unless its publication is proved to have

been made for public good. The defence of truth is not

satisfied merely by proving that the publisher honestly

believed the statement to be true, he must prove that the

statement was in fact true.

12. Truth by itself, would be not a defence to an action

for criminal defamation if other ingredients are present,

unless it can be shown that imputation in question besides

being truthful was made for the public good. As to what is

public good would be a question of fact depending upon

the facts and circumstances of the case and the onus of

proving two ingredients, namely, truth of the imputation

and the publication of the imputation for the public good,

would be on the accused.

13. The question whether or not the imputation was

made for public good would therefore be a question of fact

which would be required to be proved by the accused to

seek the benefit of the first exception to Section 499. The

defence in this regard being a question of fact, can be

decided during trial only and the benefit of the first

exception cannot be claimed at the stage of issuance of

summons.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Case :APPLICATION

U/S 482 No. 10431  of 2021

Rajesh Churiwala Vs State  of U.P. 

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

Dated: Order Date :14.7.2021

Print Page

Whether the court can convict wife for defamatory pleadings made by her against the husband in matrimonial proceeding?

Learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent/complainant in Criminal Revision Petition No. 152/2014, in her argument stating that the pleadings filed in a Court and the deposition given in a Court of Law are not privileged one and further stating that a pleading filed in the Court also amounts to publication, has relied upon few judgments in her support as follows.

In the case of Smt. Madhuri Mukund Chitnis Vs. Mukund Martand Chitnis and another reported in MANU/MH/0120/1990 : 1990 CRL. L.J. 2084, the Bombay High Court was pleased to observe that, the imputations made in a proceeding which is filed in a Court is clearly a publication. It further observed that even a publication to an authority over the person against whom the imputations are made must be held to be sufficient publication which falls within the purview of the said Section 499 of IPC.

In the case of M.K. Prabhakaran and another Vs. T.E. Gangadharan and another reported in MANU/KE/0074/2006 : 2006 CRI. L.J. 1872, the Kerala High Court, in a matter where it is alleged that defamatory statements against complainant were made in a written statement filed before the Court held that, once a statement has been filed in a Court of Law, that statement can be taken as published. If such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, then it is the duty of the accused to establish that, they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 of IPC.

In the case of Sanjay Mishra Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & another, the Delhi High Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 of its judgment was pleased to observe as below:-

"11. In Sandyal V. Bhaba Sundari Debi MANU/WB/0241/1910 : 7 Ind. Cas. 803 : 15 C.W.N. 995 : 14 C.L.J. 31 the learned Judges, following the case of Augada Ram Shaha V. Nemai Chand Shaha MANU/WB/0132/1896 : 23 C.867 : 12 Ind. Dec.(n.s.)576, held that defamatory statements made in the written statement of a party in a judicial proceedings are not absolutely privileged in this country, and that a qualified privilege in this regard cannot be claimed in respect of such statements, unless they fall within the Exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Undisputedly, the case of the petitioner was not in any of these Exceptions.

12. For criminal purposes "publication" has a wider meaning than it has in civil law, since it includes a communication to the person defamed alone. The prosecution for defamation in criminal cases can be brought although the only publication is to the person defamed as it is very likely to provoke a breach between the persons involved...."

In the case of Thangavelu Chettiar Vs. Ponnammal reported in MANU/TN/0132/1966 : AIR 1966 Mad 363, the Madras High Court was pleased to observe that, there can be no doubt that the defamation contained in the plaint was published by the plaint being filed in the Court.

20. In the instant case, to bring the statements made by the accused in Ex. P-4 which are contested to be defamatory as the one made with good faith and thus falling within the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of IPC, she has to show that she had made those statements with due care and attention. However, her own statement made at more than one place in her cross-examination as DW-1 that, she has stated that what she has stated in her statement of objections were the facts and they were the incidents occurred between herself and her husband i.e. the complainant. She has reiterated that they were the truth, as such, they were fact, in her further cross-examination also. Therefore, though the learned counsel for the accused contends that, she made the same in good faith, but according to accused, they were truth. If they are truth and falling under First Exception to Section 499 of IPC, then it is for her to prove that they were the facts.

Admittedly, except making those statements in her statement of objections at Ex. P-4 and reiterating it in Ex. P-1, she has not even attempted to show that they were the imputation of truth or that they were made in good faith. Therefore it can be safely held that the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence of defamation punishable under Section 499 of IPC, which is punishable under Section 500 of IPC.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 152 of 2014 and 1358 of 2010

Decided On: 01.10.2020

 Sushma Rani  Vs.  H.N. Nagaraja Rao

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J.

Citation: MANU/KA/3441/2020

Print Page

Whether any party can prosecute Advocate for defamation if he pleads on behalf of a client?

 In regard to the decision of Meredith J. in

AIR 1948 Pat 56 (Z33) It would be wholly improper for

me to canvass the correctness of this single Judge's

decision of another High Court which is not binding

upon me except to the extent that it refers to the decision

of Burn J. in 1935 Mad WN Cr 76 (A). The learned

Judge writes :

"I have been referred to the notes in Ratanlal's Penal

Code for a Madras case, 1935 Mad WN Cr 76 (A)

which, according to the learned commentator, laid down

that where the accused was charged with defamation

because his vakil put a defamatory question to the

complainant and the vakil gave evidence that he did so

on the instruction of his client, the accused, the

instructions of the accused to his vakil were inadmissible

under Section 126, Evidence Act and the accused was

not guilty of defamation committed as it were by proxy

through the mouth of his vakil. Unfortunately, the

decision is not obtainable In the library here. but the

reasoning quoted, seems to me sound."

 A lawyer is an

advocate -- one who speaks for another. Naturally

beyond what his client tells him the lawyer has no

opportunity to test the truth or falsity of the story put

forward by the client. It would therefore be unrighteous

to make the lawyer the whipping-boy for his client.

It is held that a lawyer is an advocate, one who speaks for another.

Naturally beyond what his client tells him the lawyer has no opportunity

to test the truth or falsity of the story put forward by the client. Therefore

no lawyer could ever be prosecuted for defamation in regard to any

instructions which he might have given to his lawyer, because it is the

lawyer's business to decide whether he could properly act upon the

instructions, and whatever responsibility might ensue from acting upon

those instruction would be his, and no one else's, is opposed to the entire

trend of decisions defining the scope and extent of the privilege

conferred upon the lawyer.

24. In light of above-stated legal analysis, an

advocate, who acted professionally as per instructions of

his/her client, cannot be made criminally liable for the

offence of defamation under Section 500 of the IPC unless

contrary is alleged and established.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.09.2020

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.Nos.4669 & 5115 of 2020 

M.L.Ganesh  Vs. CA V.Venkata Siva Kumar

Dated: 30.09.2020

Print Page

Whether offence of defamation is made out even if there is true narration of incident in newspaper?

As can be seen from the First exception, whether or not the statement or imputation is for the public good is a question of fact. Both these exceptions save the imputations which are made in public good. It being a pure question of fact, as has been observed in the case of Dilip Babasaheb Londhe (supra), it would be appropriate to leave it for the decision at the trial to ascertain if the news item was published in good faith, by extending suitable opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence.

13. As has been held in the case of Sewakram v. R.K Karanjia; (1981) 3 SCC 208, journalist do not enjoy some kind of special privilege or have a greater freedom than others to make imputations or allegations, sufficient to ruin the reputation of a citizen. They are in no better position than any other person. Truth of an allegation does not permit a justification under First exception unless it is proved to be in public good. The question whether or not it was for public good is a question of fact which needs to be proved like any other relevant fact. Bearing in mind these principles, without intending to traverse the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to inquire into and decide the issue, publishing names of the respondent no. 2 and his associates in a news item which could have been published by deleting the names is indeed a material circumstance which will have to be borne in mind by the Magistrate during the trial. At this juncture, in my considered view, publication of such item which has the potential of putting the respondent no. 2 to disrepute and to lower him in the esteems of the others is prima facie sufficient to constitute defamation as defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and the doors cannot be shut at the threshold.

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before Mangesh S. Patil, J.)

Vijay Jawaharlalji Darda  v. State of Maharashtra 

Criminal Application No. 2032 of 2009

Decided on October 4, 2019, [Reserved On: 04.09.2019]

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 2634

Print Page

Whether magistrate should consider exceptions to Section 499 of IPC while issuing process against accused?

We have referred to these authorities to highlight
that in matters of criminal defamation the heavy burden is on
the Magistracy to scrutinise the complaint from all aspects.
The Magistrate has also to keep in view the language
employed in Section 202 CrPC which stipulates about the
resident of the accused at a place beyond the area in which
the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction. He must be
satisfied that ingredients of Section 499 CrPC are satisfied.
Application of mind in the case of complaint is imperative.
198. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note
of submission of Mr. Bhambhani, learned senior counsel. It is
submitted by the learned senior counsel that Exception to
Section 499 are required to be considered at the time of

summoning of the accused but as the same is not conceived
in the provision, it is unconstitutional. It is settled position of
law that those who plead Exception must prove it. It has
been laid down in M.A. Rumugam (supra) that for the
purpose of bringing any case within the purview of the Eighth
and the Ninth Exceptions appended to Section 499 IPC, it
would be necessary for the person who pleads the Exception
to prove it. He has to prove good faith for the purpose of
protection of the interests of the person making it or any
other person or for the public good. The said proposition
would definitely apply to any Exception who wants to have the
benefit of the same. Therefore, the argument that if the said
Exception should be taken into consideration at the time of
the issuing summons it would be contrary to established
criminal jurisprudence and, therefore, the stand that it
cannot be taken into consideration makes the provision
unreasonable, is absolutely an unsustainable one and in a
way, a mercurial one. And we unhesitatingly repel the same.
 In view of the aforesaid analysis, we uphold the
constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 199 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 184 OF 2014

SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Vs UNION OF INDIA,


Dated;May 13, 2016
Dipak Misra, J.

Print Page