UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Quashes Defamation Case After Tejashwi Yadav RJD Leader Unconditionally Withdraws Statements Against Gujarati Community

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal defamation case against Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, after he unconditionally withdrew his statements that were alleged to be defamatory towards the Gujarati community.

The judgment focused on the legal point concerning the quashing of a criminal defamation case under Section 499, punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. The court examined the context and intent behind the allegedly defamatory statements and the subsequent withdrawal of these statements by the petitioner.

The issue arose from a complaint filed in Ahmedabad by Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta, alleging that Yadav's public statements defamed the entire Gujarati community. The statements in question were made by Yadav on March 22, 2023, and reported widely. Yadav, in his defense, submitted two affidavits clarifying his intent and unconditionally withdrawing the contentious statements.

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Abhay S. Oka, meticulously analyzed the affidavits and the context of the statements. Justice Oka noted that while prosecutions for defamation cannot be quashed merely because the offending allegations are withdrawn, the specific circumstances of this case warranted a different approach. Acknowledging Yadav’s clarification and unconditional withdrawal of statements, the Court observed that continuing the prosecution would be unjust and serve no purpose, especially considering Yadav's acknowledgment of the esteem for the Gujarati community and no intention of defamation.

Concluding that this is a fit case for quashing the complaint under the extraordinary constitutional powers vested in the Supreme Court by Article 142, the criminal case titled Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta versus Tejaswi Lalu Prasad Yadav was quashed. Consequently, the petition for the transfer of the complaint became moot and was disposed of.

 Date of Decision: February 13, 2024.

"Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta versus Tejaswi Lalu Prasad Yadav,"

Latest Legal News