Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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