'Prima Facie Humiliated Dignity & Honour Of A Woman': Calcutta HC On Babul Supriyo's Remarks Against Mahua Moitra

The Calcutta High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against BJP MP and Union Minister Babul Supriyo in the criminal defamation case lodged by TMC politician Mahua Moitra on the technical ground that police could not have registered FIR for the offence under Section 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code, the same being a non-cognizable offence.

At the same time, the High Court took exception to the remarks of Supriyo and observed his utterance against Moitra was "defamatory" within the meaning of Section 499 IPC.

The subject matter of the case was the comments made by Supriyo in 2017 against Moitra(then an MLA in West Bengal Assembly) during a TV interview suggesting that she was intoxicated.

A single bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, prima facie, observed that such comments humiliated the dignity and honour of a woman. Not stopping there, the bench added that Supriyo violated his constitutional oath as an MP, since it is a constitutional mandate to protect the dignity of woman.

"It is undisputed that in course of a political debate, the petitioner(Supriyo) asked the opposite party No.2(Moitra) as to whether she was intoxicated. The opposite party No.2 was at the relevant point of time an elected member of West Bengal Legislative Assembly and National Spokesperson of rival political party. She was not only a public figure, but is a woman. It is the Constitutional mandate under Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles of state policy that dignity of woman must be protected and freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions and one of such restrictions is penal provision against defamation. The petitioner, it is already stated, at the relevant point of time was a Member of Parliament. He took solemn oath to bear faith and allegiance to the constitution. By making such defamatory statement to a woman , the petitioner prima facie, not only humiliated dignity and honour of a woman, but also violated his constitutional oath".

The Court added that an imputation that the present MP from Krishnanagar was intoxicated was defamatory.

"If doubt is raised in the mind of people from the utterances made by the petitioner that the at the relevant point of time she was drunken and intoxicated, this would of course an act of imputation intending to harm the reputation of the opposite party No.2 and such deliberate utterance made by the petitioner was defamatory statement within the meaning of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code".

"It is expected from a representative of the people that he must be courteous in his behaviour, dignified in his manners and cautious on his words spoken by him", the Court advised.

The Court, however, quashed the criminal court proceedings on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by the police on the ground that the court can taken cognizance for the offence of criminal defamation only on a written complaint by the aggrieved person.

"..cognizance of offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC cannot be taken in the absence of the complaint in writing specifically filed by the complainant before the Magistrate, on the basis of police report only which is barred under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal procedure".

While allowing Supriyo's petition, the Court clarified that Moitra was at liberty to take appropriate action with respect to the objectionable remarks in accordance with law.

The Court added that in the eventuality of such an action being taken by Moitra, the court below "will take appropriate steps without being influenced or swayed over by any observation made by this Court in this judgment".

Click here to download the judgment