Madras High Court
Dr.S.Ramadoss vs The Public Prosecutor on 28 February, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.16732 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014
Dr.S.Ramadoss ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Public Prosecutor,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in C.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions
Judge, Cuddalore and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore thereby taken cognizance for the offence under Section 499 r/w 500 of IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2.The impugned complaint has been filed by the respondent seeking to punish the petitioner herein for having allegedly committed the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of IPC. The complaint reads that the petitioner herein is a senior political leader of Tamil Nadu and founder of a recognised political party. On 19.01.2014, at subbarayalu Thirumana Mandapam, Cuddalore Town, allegedly the petitioner had given a defamatory speech as against the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. It is seen from the alleged statement that it is not defamatory or harmful to the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Further there is no ingredients to initiate the proceedings as against the petitioner for the offence under Section defamation.
3.In this regard, this Court passed an order in a similarly placed matter in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19555 of 2013 dated 05.04.2018 as follows:-
“3.The complaint reads that the petitioner herein is a senior political leader of Tamil Nadu and founder of a recognized political party. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the communal clashes at Marakkanam and was remanded to judicial custody at Central Prison, Trichirappalli. He was granted bail on 11.05.2013. While coming out on http://www.judis.nic.in 3 bail, at the entrance of Central Prison, Trichirappalli, he gave an interview delivering a broadside against the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner herein had stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu was responsible for the happenings and that oppressive measures have been let loose in order to secure the votes of the downtrodden sections in the parliament election.
4.This according to the respondent was intended to lower the credit and dignity of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister and harm her reputation. This Court is unable to agree. The petitioner is a well known political leader. He was arrested in connection with certain communal clashes and was remanded to judicial custody. While coming out on bail, he expressed his opinion that it was the Government that was responsible for the happenings. He had also characterised the action taken by the then Chief Minister Ms.J.Jayalalitha as politically motivated.
5.This Court is unable to discern even the elementary ingredients of the offence of defamation in such statements. In any functional democracy, there will be trading of charges. The opposition will blame the Government and vice versa. There will be accusations and counter accusations. If makers of such statements are to be prosecuted for defamation, that would certainly have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression. Of course, no right let alone the right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of the India is absolute. In this case, the words uttered by the petitioner can be said to constitute legitimate criticism and the petitioner cannot be said to have stepped beyond the Lakshman Rekha.
6.Explanation 4 to Section 499 of IPC reads as under :
http://www.judis.nic.in 4 “Explanation 4:No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.” If an opposition leader in a democracy terms the Governmental actions as politically motivated, no reasonable person would consider it as defamatory. Borrowing Abhinav Chandrachud's title of the second Chapter in his book “Republic of Rhetoric”, this Court would characterise the impugned proceedings as an outcome of the “the wounded vanity of the government”. In this connection, one may profitably go through the order dated 15.07.2016 directing issuance of notice in A.Vijayakanth V. Public Prosecutor (2017) 11 SCC 319. It reads as under :
“1.Heard Mr.G.S. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Venkkata Ramani, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadue and Mr.Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General for the Union of India.
2.It is submitted by Mr.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that though the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) has been upheld in Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India), yet the present case, apart from the constitutional validity, http://www.judis.nic.in 5 also harps on the concept of fair criticism, discernment 2 and dissection of activities of the State Government and disapproval of views taken in the matters of administration and policy decisions. Mr.Mani, learned counsel would emphatically submit that the petition also raises a question whether the authority who is entitled to launch a prosecution under Sections 499 and 500 IPC through the Public Prosecutor should do it against a person solely because he is critical or has a different opinion.
3.The learned counsel would further submit that the office of the Public Prosecutor has its own independence; and the Public Prosecutor has been conferred an independent role under the provisions of the CrPC and he cannot become a post office in the hands of the authorities to file prosecutions for criminal defamation without scrutinizing whether a case is made out or not. It is urged by him that a sustained democracy is predicated fundamentally on the idea of criticism, dissent, and tolerance, for the will, desire, aspirations and sometimes the desperation of the people on many an occasion are expressed through such criticism. Mr.Mani would submit that the citizenry right to criticize cannot be atrophied by constant launching of criminal prosecution for defamation on each and every issue to silence the critics because when criticism in a vibrant democracy in this manner is crippled, the democracy which is best defined as the “Government of the People, by the People, for the People” would lose its cherished values.
4.Mr.Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, in his turn, would submit that apart from the Public Prosecutor who has a definitive role http://www.judis.nic.in 6 under Section199(2) CrPC, the sanctioning authority also has a significant and sacred role under sub-section (4) of the said provision and, therefore, a complaint cannot be filed in a routine manner to harass a citizen.
5.Issue notice.”
9.This Court is of the view that in this case the Government has been needlessly touchy and sensitive. This Court has already given a finding that the utterances of the petitioner cannot be said to constitute an act of defamation.
10.There is one other consideration. The events date back to the year 2013. The impugned complaint has been filed on the ground that the petitioner herein had defamed the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Ms.J.Jayalalitha, who has since passed away. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner is also aged about 81 years now.”
4.The case on hand is also similar to the above one and now the petitioner is aged about 82 years. Further there is no ingredient to attract the offence under Section defamation as against the petitioner.
Considering all these circumstances and in the interest of justice, the impugned prosecution deserves to be quashed. The proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore are therefore quashed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
5.This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.02.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order ay/nl To
1.The Public Prosecutor, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J ay Crl.O.P.No.16732 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014 Dated:28.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in