Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY in S.Santhanagopal vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2020Matching Fragments
The various facets of defamation have been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Subramanian Swamy – Vs - Union of India (2016 (7) SCC 221), wherein 'Reasonable Restriction' in the wake of Article 19 (1) http://www.judis.nic.in ___________________ W.P. Nos.25562-25563-28277/2014 of the Constitution was one of the foremost contention raised before the Hon'ble Apex Court and in that context, the following has been observed :-
14. True it is that the Constitution has provided guarantee for freedom of speech and expression, which are part of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Equally true it is that the said right of freedom of speech and expression are subject to reasonable restrictions as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy's case (supra). There can be no two different views on the above aspect, which has been well settled by a catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to add to it any further, but to state that while right to freedom of speech and expression are guaranteed under the Constitution, but, however, the same are subject to reasonable restrictions.
29. It is to be noted that sanction has been accorded for prosecution of Dr.Subramaniyan Swamy also u/s Section 499 IPC. It is clear from the materials available on record that those statements have been made by Dr.Subramanian Swamy at the time when he was interviewed by the media. Therefore, it is clear from the above that his interview to the media has been carried in print by the http://www.judis.nic.in ___________________ W.P. Nos.25562-25563-28277/2014 petitioners.
31. In the case on hand, it is on record that the statements carried on in print by the petitioners are based on the statements made by Dr.Subramanian Swamy in the interview to the media. Therefore, what the media has carried are the views expressed by Dr.Subramanian Swamy. Based on the principles enumerated by the Apex Court above, it is not necessary for the Press/Media to ascertain the truthfulness or the veracity of the statements made by Dr.Subramanian Swamy. Further, a careful analysis of the above statements and also the materials published in the print media based on the above interview shows that Dr.Swamy has made those statements in the course of his interview and further he has spoken about Dr.Jayalalithaa, as a person, who is trying to take credit for the work done by him and has in no way imputed any defamatory statements against the office of the said individual. Section 199 (2) Cr.P.C. clearly http://www.judis.nic.in ___________________ W.P. Nos.25562-25563-28277/2014 and unequivocally mandates that the Sessions Court can take cognizance of the complaint by the Public Prosecutor, on appropriate sanction, only when such defamatory statements are made about the conduct of the individual in the discharge of his/her public functions. Nowhere in the Government Orders, it is spelt out that the defamatory statements have been made with regard to the discharge of public functions by Dr.Jayalalithaa. Rather, even a bare reading of the Government Orders reveal that the Dr.Subramanian Swamy has stated that Dr.Jayalalithaa is making false propaganda as if the success has been achieved because of her efforts, though it was due to his efforts that success was achieved and the act of Dr.Jayalalithaa is for the purpose of enhancing her image in the Assembly Polls. The sum and substance of the above clearly reveal that the statements, which are alleged to be defamatory are not against any public function discharged by the said individual in her official capacity, but it is a criticism levelled against Dr.Jayalalithaa in her personal capacity. The print media has carried the statements made by Dr.Swamy. The petitioners have not imputed any allegations or made false accusations against Dr.Jayalalithaa nor against the public office held by the individual. Rather, it is clear not only from a reading of the news item published by the petitioners, but also the extracted portion in the Government Orders, that it is a personal criticism and not a criticism against the discharge of public function by the individual.