Calcutta HC Slams CWC for 'Bad & Illegal' Declaration of Child as 'Abandoned' Despite DNA Proof; Quashes Adoption Order, Mandates Fresh Inquiry With Biological Parents' Hearing 'Constitutional Rights Cannot Be Eclipsed By Parental Authority': Allahabad High Court Slaps ₹25 Lakh Compensation On Father And State For Unlawful Confinement Of Adult Women Over Voluntary Religious Conversion Co-Operative Bank Not Obligated To Deduct TDS On Interest Paid To Non-Member Co-Operative Societies Under Section 194A(3)(v) Income Tax Act: Bombay High Court Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Not Sufficient Ground For Externment; It Is An Extraordinary Measure To Be Used Sparingly: Karnataka High Court Good Conduct And Strength Of Character Always Lie In The Choices One Makes: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge Of RPF Constables For Suppressing Criminal Antecedents 'Time Is Of Extreme Essence': Supreme Court Declines To Interfere With Public Procurement Tenders Over Belated Challenge And Laches "'Hanging Is Not Cruel, Torturous Or Degrading': Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Execution By Hanging Under CrPC & BNSS" 'Backdoor Entry Cannot Be Regularized By Judicial Sympathy': Supreme Court Quashes Illegal Absorptions And Repudiates Political Machinations In Public Employment Custodial Interrogation Indispensable In Cross-Border Drug Cases Involving Commercial Quantities, Denies Pre-Arrest Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'Cannot Take Advantage Of Your Own Wrong': Delhi High Court Rejects Husband's Plea For Divorce After Defying Restitution Decree Spousal Privacy Is Not Absolute: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules Secretly Recorded Audio Evidence Admissible To Prove Adultery 'No Premium, No Risk': Supreme Court Strictly Enforces Section 64VB Insurance Act, Striking Down Retrospective Covers 'An Appeal Is Not Just A Statutory Right, It Is A Constitutional Right': Supreme Court Scraps High Court's Suo Motu Enhancement Of Life Sentence Sale With Condition To Repurchase Is Not A Mortgage: Gujarat High Court Tax Is On Use, Not On Wreckage: Kerala High Court Quashes ₹10 Lakh Demand, Rules Motor Vehicle Tax Cannot Be Levied On Accident-Wrecked Vehicles Not In Use Pecuniary Jurisdiction Objections Cannot Be Raised For The First Time In Execution Proceedings: Madras High Court 'Cannot Proceed Under SARFAESI If Dues Below ₹20 Lakhs': Punjab & Haryana High Court Protects Homeowners From Eviction, Issues Notice

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