Gauhati High Court Refuses To Quash Assam CM's Defamation Case Filed Against Delhi Dy. CM Manish Sisodia

The Gauhati High Court has refused to quash a Criminal Defamation case filed by Assam's Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma against the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia.

"...the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for quashing of the proceedings (of case) under sections 499/500 IPC, which is pending for disposal before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Thus, this petition fails and the same is dismissed," the operative part of the order of the bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana reads.

The case in brief 

In a press conference addressed in Delhi on June 4, 2022, Delhi Dy CM Sisodia had allegedly made defamatory statements against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma, accusing him of being involved in corruption by giving a Government contract to his wife's Company for purchasing PPE kits during the first wave of COVID. During the relevant time, Sarma was the Health Minister of the state.

It was further alleged by him that while purchases from others were made at Rs.600/- per kit, such kits from the Company of the CM's wife were purchased at the rate of Rs.990/- per PPE kit.

Thereafter, a complaint petition was moved by Assam's CM Sarma before the CJM Court, Kamrup alleging that Sisodia had defamed him by making defamatory statements leveling corruption charges against him in a press conference addressed at New Delhi.

The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, after considering the statement of Sarma, and the statement of 2 (two) witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., by order dated August 20, 2022, found sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner under sections 499/500 Cr.P.C.

Sisodia was thereafter, issued a summons for appearance in the proceeding. Challenging those very proceedings, Sisodia moved to the High Court praying to quash the same.

Arguments put forth

Delhi's Dy CM Sisodia primarily argued that since he was the Deputy Chief Minister of the State of NCT of Delhi at the time of holding a press conference, and accordingly, a sanction should have been obtained as per the requirement of Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute him, however, the same was not done.

It was also argued that Sisodia had merely reproduced those materials in his press conference which were available on the internet as published by various web/news portals.

On the other hand, CM Sarma argues that his wife, Rinki Bhuyan Sarma had supplied over 1400 PPE Kits by utilizing its company's Corporate Social Responsibility Fund, without raising any bills and therefore, there was no question that the Government of Assam was required to make any payment to the Company of the wife of the respondent no. 2.

It was also argued that despite issuing a clarification statement by Rinki Bhuyan on her Twitter Account regarding the entire controversy, Sisodia went ahead to address the press conference leveling corruption allegations against Sarma.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court found that Sisodia had not been able to show that by holding a press conference, he was performing a Government act/ task or that he was performing a function of a public servant.

Therefore, the Court ruled, there was no requirement of obtaining any prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the petitioner by way of a complaint petition for committing alleged defamation.

Perusing the transcript of the entire press conference, the Court came to the conclusion that Sisodia had not been able to show that the contents of the statement made by him in his press conference were not more than the contents of news pieces, or that no "sugar and spice" was added by him, or that there was no attempt to sensationalize the contents of news pieces in question.

"It must be remembered that the petitioner had made his press conference on 04.06.2022. However, according to respondent no. 2, on 01.06.2022, his wife and he had given their respective clarification regarding the free supply of 1485 PPE kits (stated as "about 1500 PPE kits") under the CSR activity of the Company of wife of the respondent no.2. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that he was not aware of the tweets made by the respondent no. 2 or his wife, or that before making a statement in the press conference, he had made enquiry as any reasonable man would do to ascertain the correctness about what he was going to state in his press conference, held after tweets of the respondent no.2 and his wife was made in social media domain of the internet," the Court added as it found no grounds to quash the case against Sisodia.

Case title - MANISH SISODIA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 67

Click Here To Read/Download Order