Manufacturing Unit Must Be in Uttar Pradesh to Bid for Child Nutrition Tender — Delhi High Court Upholds NAFED's Geographical Eligibility Condition for Rs. 2,768 Crore ICDS Supply Contract 800-Strong Mob Unleashed Against ED Officials During PDS Scam Search — Calcutta High Court Refuses Bail, Cites Witness Intimidation Threat Section 29A Cannot Reach Into a Special Statutory Code: Bombay High Court Rules Time Limit Provisions of Arbitration Act Inapplicable to Highway Land Acquisition Arbitrations Mala Fides Are ‘Easily Alleged but Hardly Proved’: Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses to Quash Income Tax Summons” Child Witness Testimony Can Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration If Reliable: Allahabad High Court FD Deposited With Bank Does Not Make Corporate a 'Commercial Purpose' User — But Fraud Allegations Can't Be Tried in Consumer Forum: Supreme Court Movie Flopped, But That's Not Cheating — Supreme Court Quashes Section 420 IPC Against Film Producer Who Borrowed Investment Money on Profit-Sharing Promise No Rape Where Consent Is Conscious and Marriage Impossible: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Man Accused of False Promise Charge Sheet Served On Last Day of Service, Punishment After Retirement: Supreme Court Upholds Pay Reduction of Bank Officer Post-Superannuation IAS Officer Convicted for Contempt Gets Fine Waived on Apology, But Gets Stricture: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashing Cannot Become a Mini-Trial: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Halt Rape Case Linked to ‘Exorcism’ and Blackmail NDPS | Prosecution Cannot Pin Cannabis Cultivation on One Co-Owner Without Proof: Bombay HC Acquits Seventeen Years of Waiting is Itself Punishment: Calcutta High Court Balances Conviction with Constitutional Compassion Bigger Truck, Damaged Motorcycle — But Insurance Company Cannot Apportion Negligence Without Examining the Driver: Gujarat High Court Tenant Cannot Bequeath Tenancy Rights by Will Under HP Tenancy Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court A Registered Sale Deed And Mutation Cannot Override Fundamental Principle That Vendor Cannot Convey Better Title Than He Possesses: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Recovery of the Dead Body Is Not an Absolute Requirement for Conviction: Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Supplemental Agreement Signed Under Threat Of Contract Termination Cannot Negate Contractor's Claim For Extra Expenditure: Kerala High Court No Bail Without Hearing the Victim: Kerala High Court Declares Orders Passed in Violation of SC/ST Act ‘Non-Est’ False Promise, Pregnancy, and Denial of Paternity: Telangana High Court Grants Bail Amid Pending DNA Evidence

Supreme Court Stays Defamation Proceedings Against Shashi Tharoor, Issues Notice on "Person Aggrieved" Under Section 199 CrPC

25 September 2024 2:57 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India, in Shashi Tharoor v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., stayed the ongoing defamation proceedings against the petitioner, Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor. The defamation complaint, based on comments made by Tharoor in 2018 referring to an earlier statement published in The Caravan magazine in 2012, was challenged by Tharoor on the grounds that the complainant did not qualify as an "aggrieved person" under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court, after hearing initial arguments, issued a notice and stayed the proceedings.

The dispute arises from remarks made by Tharoor during a public speech on October 28, 2018, where he referenced a metaphor likening Prime Minister Narendra Modi to a "scorpion sitting on a Shivling," originally published in The Caravan magazine in 2012. The complainant, respondent No. 2, argued that the comments were defamatory due to the growing prominence of the Prime Minister and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). While the article was not controversial at the time of its publication, the complainant alleged that Tharoor’s 2018 comments deliberately revived the metaphor to malign the Prime Minister’s reputation.

Tharoor was summoned under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with defamation. He challenged this summons in the Delhi High Court, which, while staying the proceedings temporarily, ultimately ruled on August 29, 2024, that the case should proceed. Tharoor was directed to appear before the trial court on September 10, 2024. This led to his appeal before the Supreme Court.

The core legal issue revolves around whether the complainant qualifies as a "person aggrieved" under Section 199(1) of the CrPC. According to this provision, only the person defamed or someone directly affected by the defamatory content can file a complaint. Tharoor's counsel argued that the complainant, being neither the Prime Minister nor an entity directly connected to him, could not claim to be personally aggrieved by the statement.

Tharoor's defense also pointed to Exception Clauses 8 and 9 under Section 499 of the IPC, which protect statements made in good faith or in the public interest from being considered defamatory. His counsel argued that the metaphor was a literary reference, not intended to harm anyone’s reputation, and should be seen in the context of public discourse.

In support of their argument, the defense cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India (2016), where the Court extensively discussed the interpretation of "person aggrieved" under Section 199 CrPC. The ruling clarified that whether a complainant is genuinely aggrieved must be decided based on the facts of each case.

"Determining the ‘person aggrieved’ requires due deliberation on the facts of the case... The test is whether the complainant has reason to feel hurt on account of the publication, which must be weighed by the courts depending on the facts at hand."

The Supreme Court, after hearing the counsel for Tharoor, decided to issue a notice to the respondents and stay further proceedings in the trial court until the matter is resolved. The Court appeared inclined to scrutinize the complainant's standing under Section 199 of the CrPC, particularly in light of the precedent set by the Subramaniam Swamy case.

The defense’s reliance on Exception Clauses 8 and 9 under Section 499 of the IPC further raised the question of whether the statement was made in good faith and in the public interest. The Court did not delve into this aspect yet, but it may be a critical point in subsequent hearings.

The Supreme Court's order to stay the defamation proceedings against Shashi Tharoor brings into focus key legal questions regarding defamation law, specifically the scope of who qualifies as a "person aggrieved" under Section 199 of the CrPC. The case is set for further deliberation after the respondents file their response to the Supreme Court's notice, with the proceedings stayed in the interim.

Date of Decision: September 10, 2024

Shashi Tharoor v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Latest Legal News