Opposition Should Not Be Prevented From Voicing Concerns By Subjecting Them To Criminal Cases But It Should Avoid Abusive Outbursts: Madras HC

Justice Anand Venkatesh also observed that the opposition plays a major role in providing checks and balances in the functioning of the democracy and by making constructive criticisms about the policies of the ruling government, the opposition could make the government accountable to the public and make them work in accordance with the social welfare and public good.

“The constructive opposition will expose the weakness of the ruling government and it is the opposition, which is the guardian of public interest and it reminds the ruling government its duty towards people, who elected them to power. Opposition provides checks and balances in the functioning of a democracy. Therefore, it must be ensured that the opposition is not throttled and prevented from voicing their concern by subjecting them to undergo criminal cases,” the court observed.

At the same time, the court also cautioned the opposition from using harsh languages to raise criticism. The court remarked that in the name of voicing concerns, the opposition should not have a vituperative outburst as such sharp language would result in maligning the government and could be considered defamatory. The court added that when such languages was used, it would side track the issues raised.

“How so ever noble is the intention behind making such statements, the offensive and opprobrious statements can side track the issue that has been raised and they will be construed more as defamatory statements. This is more so when personal attacks are made against the public servants/constitutional functionaries by vilifying them. It is expected in a matured democracy that the opposition expresses its views in a language, which does not cross the limits and becomes defamatory,” the court added.

The court was hearing pleas filed by AIADMK MP C.Ve Shanmugam challenging the criminal prosecutions initiated against him before the Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram. Shanmugam had challenged the Government Orders passed by the State according sanction to the Public Prosecutor to make complaints under Section 199(2) of the CrPC for the defamatory speech he had made against Chief Minister MK Stalin.

Shanmugam contended that the sanction was accorded without any application of mind and was arbitrary and illegal. He also contended that as a member of the opposition party, criticism against the CM could not be prevented by initiating defamation cases and the same would amount to throttling the voice of the opposition.

On the other hand, the state argued that the Government Orders were issued after taking into account the materials placed before the Inspector General of Police. It was argued that the materials were per se defamatory and against the Chief Minister in discharge of his public functions, and thus there was no ground to quash the GO.

The court, after going through the Apex Court decision in KKMishra v State of Madhya Pradesh, noted that when alleged defamatory statements are made against a public servant/constitutional functionary, a four-step process had to be adopted.

• Whether the offence of defamation was committed against the public servant?
• Whether proper sanction was accorded by competent authority under Section 199(4) of the Code?
• Whether the alleged statements constitute defamation under Section 499 of the IPC?
• Whether the defamatory statements has a direct nexus with the discharge of public functions of the public servant?

The court was satisfied that the first two conditions were satisfied in all the cases. The court then went into the statements made in each of the four cases and noted that in two cases, the statements made were defamatory and directly attributable or connected with the discharge of public functions by the office of the Chief Minister. The court thus dismissed the pleas filed against initiation of criminal proceedings in these cases.

With respect to the other two cases, the court noted that though Shanmugam had used strong expressions to vent his dissatisfaction, it was not attributable to the discharge of public functions. Thus, noting that the last two requirements were not met, the court opined that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law and quashed the same.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Vijay Narayan, SC for Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.S.Raman, AG assisted by Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, GA (Crl.Side)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 37

Case Title: C Ve. Shanmugam v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case No: Writ Petition Nos.879, 882, 884 & 887 of 2024

Click here to read/download the judgment