When Political Party Is Defamed, Members Not At Helm Of Affairs Can't File Complaint : Madras HC Quashes Complaint Against Maridhas Over Remarks Against DMK
The Party has not authorised the filing of the complaint. If the partymen or the members of DMK had been defamed, then as a member of a definite class of people, the respondent could have maintained the complaint, the court observed.
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court has quashed a defamation case pending against YouTuber M. Maridhas for targeting Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) over the announcement urging its cadre to draw 'Kolams' as a form of Anti-CAA Protest.Justice G.R Swaminathan quashed the case pending in the file of the Thootukudi Judicial Magistrate after observing that the complainant, S.R.S Umari Shankar,...
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court has quashed a defamation case pending against YouTuber M. Maridhas for targeting Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) over the announcement urging its cadre to draw 'Kolams' as a form of Anti-CAA Protest.
Justice G.R Swaminathan quashed the case pending in the file of the Thootukudi Judicial Magistrate after observing that the complainant, S.R.S Umari Shankar, is not an aggrieved party and the continuation of the case would be an abuse of the legal process.
The origin of the case can be traced back to Advocate Gayathri Kanthadai who resorted to a novel form of Anti-CAA protest in Besant Nagar by drawing 'kolams' containing slogans. The Advocate was detained by the police that drew ire from the then opposition party, DMK. Later, the Tamil Nadu Police alleged that the detained advocate was associated with Pakistan based NGO "Bytes for all". Before that, DMK had urged the party members to imitate the Advocate's form of protest across Tamil Nadu. Afterwards, a video was uploaded by Maridhas in January, 2020, allegedly defaming DMK Party and Advocate Gayathri Kanthadai.
The complainant had previously submitted before the court that he was a party man and an office bearer of DMK.
"The petitioner (Maridhas) had only made imputations against Ms.Gayathri Kanthadai and DMK. No imputation has been made against DMK partymen as such. The complainant has not suffered any legal injury. His reputation has not in any way been lowered. The Party has not authorised the filing of the complaint. If the partymen or the members of DMK had been defamed, then as a member of a definite class of people, the respondent could have maintained the complaint. Such is not the case here. The complainant on his own has filed the complaint", the court clarified in the quashing order.
The court opined that Section 199 of CrPC [ Prosecution for Defamation] can be invoked only when the complaint is filed by 'some person aggrieved'. About the interpretation of the term, the court went on to note that it can include a 'third party' apart from the person who was defamed. However, the above interpretation cannot be applied extensively in all circumstances.
Before interpreting the term, the court also drew a parallel to Section 198 of CrPC that talks about prosecution for offences against marriage by defamed party and 'some person aggrieved'. Only proximate relatives can file a complaint and not distant relatives under the said provision.
According to the court, John Thomas v. K.Jagadeesan (Dr) (2001) 6 SCC 30 has settled the law about who the 'some person aggrieved' will be in the context of defamation. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the facts of the case, the court added as below in the order:
"If a recognized political party has been defamed, a complaint by a high ranking functionary like the President or Secretary of the Party would definitely be maintainable in the light of the aforesaid decision. Where the Party alone in contra distinction with partymen has been defamed, others not at the helm of affairs cannot maintain a complaint as they would not be persons aggrieved."
Noting that the issue is no longer res integra, reference was also made to Madras High Court judgment in Tamilisai Soundararajan v. Dhadi K.Karthikeyan (2021). In the said case too, a person claiming to be the party member of Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) had filed a complaint against the allegedly defamatory statements against the political party. According to the dictum of the court in that judgment, a party said to have been affected by the defamatory act should give authorisation to the complainant. In the absence of such authorisation by the party defamed, the complainant won't be a 'person aggrieved' for the purpose of Section 500 IPC even if the complaint was filed on his/her/ their own accord.
At the outset, the court observed that the offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC can be in relation to an imputation made against a company or an association or 'collection of persons as such'. About the usage of 'as such' in the provision, the court referred to Ahmedali Adamali v. Emperor (1938) for further clarity.
"It was held therein that if a collection or company of persons as such is defamed, one of their members may make a complaint on behalf of the collection or company of persons as a whole, but the defamation must be shown to be of all the persons in the association or collection as such", the court explained.
Thereafter, relying on Section 3 (42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Justice G.R Swaminathan underscored that 'person' would include a political party as well since it is 'an association or body of individual citizens of India registered with Election Commission' according to Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968
However, in Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam and Ors. v. The Election Commission of India, (2012) 7 SCC 340 it was held that the political parties need not mandatorily be registered with the Election Commission.
Special emphasis was placed by Justice G.R Swaminathan on the dissenting judgment of Justice Chelameshwar:
"...it has been observed that political parties are not bodies corporate but are only associations consisting of shifting masses of people, a recognized political party is very much a distinct entity enjoying constitutional recognition. This is particularly on account of the introduction of the X Schedule in the Indian Constitution... Just as a company was held to be a separate entity apart from its shareholders in the celebrated decision in Salomon vs. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd [(1897) AC 22], a recognized political party is also a separate person apart from its members", the court deducted from the dissenting judgment.
Therefore, the criminal original petition was allowed and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Case Title: Maridhas v. S.R.S Umari Shankar
Case No: Crl.OP(MD)No.20774 of 2021 and CRL.MP(MD)Nos.11863 & 11864 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
Click Here To Read/ Download Order