[ad_1]
SHIMLA: The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in a recent judgement observed that calling a person corrupt is per se defamatory as it tends to lower the estimation of the person in the eyes of the public and cannot be justified by resorting to Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Court said that there is a right to criticism but not a right to abuse and defame any person.It said that granting the right to abuse and defame a person will not make a democracy healthy and vibrant but will turn it into a mudslinging arena where the opposition and dissent will be crushed by abuses and slurs.
The bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla made the above observation while allowing a petition filed by Horticulture and Revenue Minister Jagat Singh Negi, who is also Congress MLA from Kinnaur, against the trial court order wherein his defamation complaint against BJP leader Surat Singh Negi was dismissed.
Jagat Singh Negi had filed a complaint before the Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 500, 504, 505(C) of IPC asserting that Surat Negi had levelled corruption allegation against him with regard to withdrawal of travelling allowance in excess.
The Trial Court had recorded the statements of the petitioner and his witnesses and thereafter held that the right of speech and expression is a fundamental right and the public has a right to know. Trial Court had further held that the opposition has a right to criticize the ruling party and such criticism is essential for a vibrant democracy and politicians should not be thin-skinned and hypersensitive. “There was no mens rea. Hence, the complaint was dismissed,” Trial Court had observed.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the Trial Court, the present revision was filed, asserting that the Trial Court failed to apply its mind to the controversy in issue. Nitin Thakur, counsel for the petitioner, had submitted in the High Court that the Trial Court misdirected itself while passing the order and it was wrongly held that the Surat Negi had a right to criticize the petitioner. He said that the right of criticism does not extend to hurling abuses and defamation; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the Trial Court be set aside.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla in the judgement said that in the present case, the statement made by the respondent that the petitioner had withdrawn the excess amount can amount to criticism of the public official and exposure of his acts. However, to call a person corrupt lowers his estimation in the eyes of the public and is per se defamatory.
The Court said that the Trial Court fell in error while holding that the accused was justified in calling the petitioner corrupt, such a right cannot be given to anyone as long as the offence of defamation exists in the statute books. It said that the Trial Court was swayed by the promotion of healthy and vibrant democracy by the right of criticism.
Judgement said that in the present case, nothing was stated in the complaint or the statement on oath that the words used by the accused were intended to provoke the complainant or any other person to commit a breach of peace. Hence, no grounds for summoning the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under section 504 of IPC is made out.
While partly allowing the plea, the Court has set aside the April 26, 2022 order passed by the Trial Court. 16. The accused has been ordered to be summoned for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC and the parties through their respective counsels have been directed to appear before the Trial Court on March 12.
The bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla made the above observation while allowing a petition filed by Horticulture and Revenue Minister Jagat Singh Negi, who is also Congress MLA from Kinnaur, against the trial court order wherein his defamation complaint against BJP leader Surat Singh Negi was dismissed.
Jagat Singh Negi had filed a complaint before the Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 500, 504, 505(C) of IPC asserting that Surat Negi had levelled corruption allegation against him with regard to withdrawal of travelling allowance in excess.
The Trial Court had recorded the statements of the petitioner and his witnesses and thereafter held that the right of speech and expression is a fundamental right and the public has a right to know. Trial Court had further held that the opposition has a right to criticize the ruling party and such criticism is essential for a vibrant democracy and politicians should not be thin-skinned and hypersensitive. “There was no mens rea. Hence, the complaint was dismissed,” Trial Court had observed.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the Trial Court, the present revision was filed, asserting that the Trial Court failed to apply its mind to the controversy in issue. Nitin Thakur, counsel for the petitioner, had submitted in the High Court that the Trial Court misdirected itself while passing the order and it was wrongly held that the Surat Negi had a right to criticize the petitioner. He said that the right of criticism does not extend to hurling abuses and defamation; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the Trial Court be set aside.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla in the judgement said that in the present case, the statement made by the respondent that the petitioner had withdrawn the excess amount can amount to criticism of the public official and exposure of his acts. However, to call a person corrupt lowers his estimation in the eyes of the public and is per se defamatory.
The Court said that the Trial Court fell in error while holding that the accused was justified in calling the petitioner corrupt, such a right cannot be given to anyone as long as the offence of defamation exists in the statute books. It said that the Trial Court was swayed by the promotion of healthy and vibrant democracy by the right of criticism.
Judgement said that in the present case, nothing was stated in the complaint or the statement on oath that the words used by the accused were intended to provoke the complainant or any other person to commit a breach of peace. Hence, no grounds for summoning the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under section 504 of IPC is made out.
While partly allowing the plea, the Court has set aside the April 26, 2022 order passed by the Trial Court. 16. The accused has been ordered to be summoned for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC and the parties through their respective counsels have been directed to appear before the Trial Court on March 12.
#Himachal #Pradesh #Calling #Person #Corrupt #Defamatory
