IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court

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.

Similar News