Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

L) Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221 in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law & Others, and in particular paras 50, 51, 52 and 53 of the said judgment it is contended that reputation is an internal and central facet of right to life as projected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the reputation is an honour which deserves to be equally preserved by the downtrodden and the privileged and further referring to paras 98, 132, 133, 136, and 144, of the said judgment it is contended that in the name of freedom of speech and expression, the right of another cannot be jeopardised. Referring to para 195 of the same judgment it is submitted by the learned counsel that the right to free speech cannot mean that the citizen can defame the other and further protection of reputation is a fundamental right and also a human right and nobody has a right to denigrate others right to person or WP_34681_2023 SN,J reputation. Referring to para 198 of the same judgment it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the Petitioner herein had locus to file the present writ petition and the Petitioner is the person aggrieved and the test whether the Petitioner has a reason to feel hurt due to release of the movie 'Vooyham' is a matter to be determined by the Court depending on the facts of the present case.

WP_34681_2023 SN,J

vi) Referring to Section 499 IPC which deals with definition of defamation it is contended that the Petitioner herein is a person aggrieved since the Petitioner political party is in existence for the last 40 years and the same is being defamed.

vii) Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221 in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India in particular referring to para 144 of the said judgment it is contended that the right to reputation is a constituent of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the reputation being an inherent component of Article 21 should not be allowed to be sullied solely because another individual can have its freedom.

9) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221 in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India at para 198 of the said judgment observed as under :

"The said provision is criticised on the ground that "some person aggrieved" is on a broader spectrum and that is why, it allows all kinds of persons to take recourse to defamation. As far as the concept of "some person aggrieved"

is concerned, we have referred to a plethora of decisions in course of our deliberations to show how this Court has determined the concept of "some person aggrieved". While dealing with various Explanations, it has been clarified about definite identity of the body of persons or collection of persons. In fact, it can be stated that the "person aggrieved" is to be determined by the courts in each case according to the fact situation. It will require ascertainment on due deliberation of the facts. In John Thomas v. K. Jagadeesan, while dealing with "person aggrieved", the Court opined that the test is whether the complainant has reason to feel hurt on account of publication is WP_34681_2023 SN,J a matter to be determined by the court depending upon the facts of each case. In S.Khushboo, while dealing with "person aggrieved", a three-Judge Bench has opined that the respondents therein were not "persons aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 199(1) CrPC as there was no specific legal injury caused to any of the complainants since the appellant's remarks were not directed at any individual or readily identifiable group of people. The Court placed reliance M.S. Jayaraj V Commr. of Excise and G. Narasimhan and observed that if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an "person aggrieved", the trial and conviction of an accused in such a case by the Magistrate would be void and illegal. Thus, it is seen that the words "some persons aggrieved" are determined by the courts depending upon the facts of the case.

WP_34681_2023 SN,J

34. The Apex Court in Subramaian Swamy Vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221 held that though Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India gives a fundamental right of speech and expression yet it is circumscribed with certain reasonable restrictions, as the freedom of speech cannot be regarded as so righteous that it would make the reputation of another individual absolutely ephemeral. It is further held that the Court when called upon to decide case of such nature, a balance between the fundamental rights and the reasonable restrictions imposed by the statutory provisions is required to be made in this regard. It is no doubt true that the right to freedom of speech and expression is always regarded not only as a Constitutional Right but a right inhered in every human yet, such right is not absolute as it is circumscribed with reasonable restrictions. It is thus held that the balancing of a fundamental right with the reasonable restriction is an inviolable constitutional necessity. The Apex Court in the said judgment reported in WP_34681_2023 SN,J Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India at para 144 observed as under :