Statements Like 'I Will Expose Your Scam' Against A Minister Not Defamatory Unless There Is Something More: Supreme Court
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, the Supreme Court observed while quashing defamation complaint filed by Delhi Minister Manish Sisodia against BJP leader Vijender Gupta.The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and...
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, the Supreme Court observed while quashing defamation complaint filed by Delhi Minister Manish Sisodia against BJP leader Vijender Gupta.
The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian observed that defamatory statement should be specific and not very vague and general.
Sisodia had filed defamation complaint against Gupta and others. His allegation against Gupta is regarding the tweet in which the latter stated that "I am sure that your answer will disclose your scam in the construction of these rooms but you are avoiding to give answer but I will obtain the reply". The tweets were in the context of allegations regarding Sisodia's involvement in corruption of nearly Rs 2,000 crore in the building of classrooms in Delhi's government schools.
While allowing Gupta's appeal challenging the summoning order, the Apex Court bench observed.
"We do not know how a statement in a tweet that the answers of respondent No.1(Sisodia) to the questions posed by the appellant will disclose his scam, can be said to be defamatory. 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 (A5) 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 court observed that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, did not go into the contents of the tweets made by Vijender Gupta and thus to that extent there was no application of mind on the part of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
"Though the High Court prima facie examined the tweets, it upheld the summoning order passed by the Magistrate, after simply extracting Section 499. 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."
The Court however dismissed co-accused BJP leader Manoj Tiwari's petition challenging the summons in the defamation csae.
Case details
Manoj Kumar Tiwari vs Manish Sisodia | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 853 | CrA 1791 OF 2022 | 17 October 2022 | Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 199 - A person falling under the category of persons mentioned in subsection (2) of Section 199 can either take the route specified in subsection (4) or take the route specified in subSection (6) of Section 199 - The right of an individual is saved, under subsection (6), even if he falls under the category of persons mentioned in subsection (2) - The special procedure is 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. (Para 50-51)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 199(6) , 237 , 250 - 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 ? - 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. (Para 52-55)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 499 - Defamation - 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 - 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. (Para 60-64)