Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.1 In support of his submissions, Mr.Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:-

1. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221 Ministry of law and others (para 176, 177,

178)

2. Shyam Narain Pandey Vs. State of Uttar (2014) 8 SCC 909 Pradesh (para 6) R/CR.RA/521/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2023

3. G. Narasimhan, G. Kasturi and K. Gopalan Vs. (1072) 2 SCC 680 T. V. Chokkappa (para 14) 4 K. M. Mathew and others Vs. Balan (para 26, 1984 SCC Online 27, 28) Ker 156 5 K. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal and another (2010) 5 SCC 600 (para 37, 43, 44) 6 M. P. Narayana Pillai and others Vs. M. P. 1986 SCC Online Chacko and another (para 10, 11) Ker 322 7 Sunil Todi and others Vs. State of Gujarat and 2021 SCC Online another (para 45) (quoted para 10, 11) SC 1174 8 Vijay Dhanuka and others Vs. Najima Mamtaj (2014) 14 SCC 638 and others (para 11, 12) 9 Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and others (2004) 7 SCC 338 (para 15) 10 Narottamdas L. Shah Vs. Patel Maganbhai 1984 GLH 687 Revabhai and others (para 57) 11 Anvar P. V. Vs. P. K. Basheer and others (para (2014) 10 SCC 473 7, 14) 12 New York Times Co. Vs. Sullivan 376 US 254 1964 13 Cantwell Vs. Connecticut 310 US 296 14 Gertz Vs. Robert Wench 418 US 323 (1974) 15 Kartar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 541 (para 12) 16 Vinod Dua Vs. Union of India and others (para 2021 SCC Online 17 The Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd and AIR 1958 SC 578 others Vs. Union of India and others (para 124) 18 Lok Prahari Vs. Election Commission of India (2018) 18 SCC 114 and another (para 16) 19 Indira Kapoor Vs. State of H.P. (para 26) 2022 SCC Online HP 5017 20 Mohammed Moquim Vs. State of Odisha CRLA No. 880 of (Vigilance) (para 16) 2022 dated 19.10.2022 21 Sayed Mohammed Noorul Ameer and others 2023 SCC Online Vs. U. T. Administration of Lakshdweep (para Ker 604 12 and 18) 22 Shakuntala Khatik Vs. State of M.P. (para 13) I.L.R. (2020) M.P. R/CR.RA/521/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2023 23 Smt. Sheela Kushwah and others Vs. State of CRA No.11606 of Madhya Pradesh 2022 dated 09.01.2023 24 Naranbhai Bhikhabhai Kachchadia Vs. State of Cr.A No. 418 of Gujarat 2016 dated 29.04.2016 25 Ravikant S. Patil Vs. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali (2007) 1 SCC 673 (para 12 to 16) 26 Pradip Madhwani, Editor of Nobat Daily and (2003) 44 (3) GLR another Vs. State of Gujarat and another (para 2489

6. In Subramanian Swamy's case |(2016) 7 SCC 221)] (starts at Pg. 1 of Judgment Compilation Volume 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court closely examined the prayer for decriminalisation of defamation, as an offence. Of course, the vires were upheld. It needs however to be emphasized that the offence of defamation is bailable and noncognisable. Furthermore the offence is not social in R/CR.RA/521/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2023 nature as the process of law can be set in motion only if the person aggrieved claiming to be defamed chooses to come forward. It also needs to be appreciated that even when proved, the offence of defamation is one of the only 22 offences in IPC punishable simple imprisonment. Thus, there is a wide range within which the judicial discretion is required to be exercised. The offence would thus fall within the category of 'extraordinary cases.' It is also not anti- societal. being an offence which can only be prosecuted by a person aggrieved through a private complaint.

13. Similarly the finding at Pg. 69 that the Complainant being an ex-minister, involved in public life. certainly suffered harm in his reputation and pain and agony in society. These observations are apparently irrelevant, besides being contrary to facts because there is nothing on record that the Respondent - Complainant was a minister at the time when the alleged speech was made.

14. Though the trial court has duly noted the submission that the association and collection of persons cannot embrace a large population of 13 crores, which is not a definite or identifiable group (at Pg. 67), it failed to answer the same. The term "Modi" does not fall in the category of "association or collection of persons" as stipulated under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (See Explanation 2). Association or collection of persons must be an identifiable body to ascertain definitiveness. The collection has to be boundaried and without wooly edges (Also See Para 176- 178, Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC

6. In the case of Subramanian Swamy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraph no.176 as under:-

"176. More than five decades back, the Court, in Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1451 :

1965 (2) SCR 823 while being called upon to decide whether public prosecutor would constitute a class or come within the definition of "collection of persons" referred to Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC, and held that collection of persons must be identifiable in the sense that one could, with certainty, say that this group of particular people has been defamed, as distinguished from the rest of the community. The Court, in the facts of the case, held that the prosecuting staff of Aligarh or, as a matter of fact, the prosecuting staff in the State of Uttar Pradesh, was certainly such an identifiable group or collection of persons, and there was nothing indefinite about it. Thus, in the said authority, emphasis is laid on the concept of identifiability and definitiveness as regards collection of persons."