Citizens Cannot Be Prosecuted For Defamation U/S 499, 500 IPC For Criticizing A Product/ Service On Facebook: Kerala High Court

Justice N. Nagaresh observed that criticism of a product or service cannot be considered to be imputation of reputation to be punishable as defamatory under Section 499 and 500 of IPC.

“ The statements of the witnesses would show that the content of the Facebook post is regarding the product of the Firm of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent has criticized the product. Criticism of any product/service made by a citizen cannot be treated as defamatory though such criticism may not be of the liking of the manufacturers/producers.”

The Court stated that the manufacturer/producers might not like criticisms against their product or service, but it cannot be treated as defamatory under Section 499 and 500 of IPC.

The allegation was that the respondent posted a defamatory content against the complainant on a Facebook page. It was alleged that the Facebook post was made to tarnish the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s motor firm. The offences alleged were under Section 500 (punishment for defamation), 501 (printing or engraving defamatory matter) and 502 (sale of printed or engraved defamatory matter) of the IPC. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam held that there were no sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint and dismissed it. Against this order, the complainant has approached the High Court.

The Counsel for the complainant argued that Section 499 of IPC define defamation and it deals with imputation of harm caused to the reputation of individuals. It was argued that the respondent has cause harm to the petitioner’s brand and it has affected his business. It was further argued that the Facebook post has tarnished the reputation of the brand of the complainant and has affected his sale.

The Court examined Section 499 of IPC which defines defamation as any imputation made or published which affects the reputation of individuals through words either spoken or written, signs or visible representations. Section 499 also provides exceptions to defamation. It relied upon the decision in Malayala Manorama Company Limited and others v. Deepak J. M. and others (2019) only deals with harm to reputation caused to any person and not product.

“This Court in the judgment in Malayala Manorama Company Limited and others v. Deepak J. M. and others [2018 KHC 160] has held that what is the content in the body of Section 499 IPC is regarding the harm to the reputation of any person. Any criticism or loss of reputation of any product therefore cannot be treated as defamatory.”

On the above observations, the Court dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the order dismissing the complaint passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates D.Feroze, C.J.Jiyas, T.S.Krishnendu and Preeti S.

Counsel for the respondents: Public Prosecutor Parvathy Vijayan, Advocates N.R. Sangeeth Raj, S.Sibha and Ameer Salim.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 583

Case title: Ayub H.H. v State of Kerala

Case number: CRL.REV.PET NO. 266 OF 2023

Click here to download/read the Order