Brief Facts
- In this case Manish Sisodia, then Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi had filed a criminal complaint against Manoj Kumar Tiwari & five ors. alleging that Manoj Kumar Tiwari made false and defamatory statements against the Complainant during the press conference and alleged that the Complainant was involved in corrupt practices in the matter involving allotment of contract for building class rooms in Delhi Government Schools. Appellant No. 2 to 4 accompanied Manoj Kumar Tiwari in the press conference and made the similar allegation. Accused No. 5 and 6 were alleged to have been posted defamatory tweets against the Complainant.
- After recording the statements of the Complainant and two independent witnesses the Ld. Magistrate Court took cognizance against the Accused persons for commission of the offence under section 500 read with 34 IPC (for Accused No. 1 to 4) and under section 500 IPC (against Accused No. 5 and 6).
- The order of cognizance was challenged by the Accused persons before the Delhi High Court on the ground that the Complainant has not complied with the procedure laid down under Section 199(2) of the CrPC. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Petition and the appeals were filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Issues
- Can a person, who also happens to be a public servant, file the Complaint for defamation under section 199(6) of the CrPC instead of following the procedure prescribed under section 199(2) of the CrPC?
- Whether the protection available under Section 237 of the Code to the accused, will be lost if the public servant avoids the special procedure and lodges a complaint individually?
- Whether the statement made in a tweet “I will expose your scam” or any other similar statement would be treated as a defamatory statement?
Held
- The Apex Court dismissed the Appeals filed by Appellant No. 1 to 4 after concluding that the Public Servant is free to file complaint under section 199(6) of the CrPC in his individual capacity and the compliance of procedure under section 199(2) is not required in such cases. However, the Appeals filed by the Appellant No. 5 and 6 were accepted and the order of cognizance was quashed to their extent.
- The long history of the evolution of the legislation relating to prosecution for the offence of defamation of public servants shows that the special procedure introduced in 1955 and fine-tuned in 1964 and overhauled in 1973 was in addition to and not in derogation of the right that a public servant always had as an individual. He never lost his right merely because he became a public servant and merely because the allegations related to official discharge of his duties. Sub-section (6) of Section 199 which is a reproduction of what was recommended in the 41st Report of the Law Commission to be made sub-section (13) of Section 198B, cannot be made a dead letter by holding that persons covered by sub-section (2) of Section 199 may have to invariably follow only the procedure prescribed by sub-section (4) of Section 199. Therefore, the common ground raised by both the appellants is liable to be rejected. A person falling under the category of persons mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 199 can either take the route specified in sub-section (4) or take the route specified in sub-Section (6) of Section 199.
- It is not as though there is no such safety valve against prosecution by an individual without reasonable cause, when he invokes sub-section (6) of Section 199. Whenever a person is prosecuted by a public servant in his individual capacity before a Magistrate by virtue of Section 199(6), the accused can always fall back upon Section 250, for claiming compensation on the ground that the accusation was made without reasonable cause.
- We are afraid that even if a person belonging to a political party had challenged a person holding public office by stating “I will expose your scam”, the same may not amount to defamation. Defamatory statement should be specific and not very vague and general. The essential ingredient of Section 499 is that the imputation made by the accused should have the potential to harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made. Therefore, we are of the view that the statement made by Shri Vijender Gupta (A-5) to the effect “your answer will disclose your scam” cannot be considered to be an imputation intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of respondent No. 1.
- The claim made by a person involved in politics that the answers provided by his rival in public office to the questions posed by him, will expose his scam, cannot be per se stated to be intended to harm the reputation of the person holding office. The statements such as “I will expose you”, “I will expose your corrupt practices” and “I will expose the scam in which you are involved, etc.” are not by themselves defamatory unless there is something more.
Relevant Para No.
- 51, 54, 60 & 62