Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Statements in Court Filings Amount to Publication, Attract Defamation Under IPC: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has held that defamatory statements made in court filings amount to publication, thus attracting the provisions of defamation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision came in the case of Xavier Pollayil Vs. C.H. Chandrabhanu & State of Kerala, where Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. dismissed a petition seeking to quash proceedings for defamation.

The crux of the judgment centered around whether statements made in a counter-affidavit submitted before a court of law could be considered as 'publication' under sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, which deal with defamation.

The case arose from a complaint by C.H. Chandrabhanu, a lawyer, alleging defamation by Xavier Pollayil, the petitioner and former Secretary of the Rotary Club, Cherthala. Pollayil had made certain statements in his counter affidavits regarding a lawsuit related to the termination of membership from the Rotary Club. The complainant argued that these statements were defamatory.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. meticulously analyzed the case, referring to various precedents. He observed, "Merely because the statement happened to be made in a counter affidavit submitted before a court of law, that would not enable the accused to contend that the same is not a publication which attracts the offence under Section 499 r/w. Section 500 of IPC." The Judge also noted that determining whether a statement falls under the exceptions of Section 499 IPC requires a trial and cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.PC.

The High Court rejected the petition to quash the proceedings, stating that the issues raised are matters for trial. The Court emphasized that its observations were not intended to decide any issues between the parties but to assess the prima facie case for invoking the Court's inherent powers.

Date of Decision: 16 February 2024

Xavier Pollayil VS C.H.Chandrabhanu

Latest Legal News