Allowed

S.Selvam, v. Union of India

Madras HC6 Jun 2018WP/25298/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed a criminal complaint defaming the petitioner, a newspaper publisher, under sections 499-501 IPC. Relying on precedent and the Third Exception regarding public conduct and opinion, the court held that expressing bona fide opinions in news media cannot be treated as maliciou a defamation.

What did the court decide?

The criminal complaint in C.C.No.4 of 2012 for offences under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed.

S.Selvam, Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶5

W.P.No.25298 of 2012

¶6

S.Selvam ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs 1.Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Company Affairs, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001. 2.State of Tamilnadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Public Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The City Public Prosecutor, City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the complaint in C.C.No.04 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, for alleged offences under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of the Indian Panel Code, quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kumaresan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao for R1 Mrs.P.Rosekamalam Addl. Govt. Pleader for RR2 & 3 O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief:

¶12

“To issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the complaint in C.C.No.04 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, for alleged offences under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of the Indian Panel Code, quash the same.”

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

The above said criminal complaint has been filed by the City Public Prosecutor/third respondent herein, alleging defamation against the petitioner who is the Printer, Publisher and Editor of Tamil news daily “Murasoli”. As per the complaint, certain materials which were published in the daily run by the petitioner in the issue dated 20.05.2012, are per se defamatory and therefore, would attract penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The said action initiated by the third respondent is put to challenge in the present writ petition.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Constitution of India has provided 'right to freedom' which guarantees freedom of speech and expression and such freedom of expression is a part of the fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution and therefore, such right cannot be impeached for filing defamation cases and by stifling the free and frank expression to be expressed by the news Media. He would submit that what has been published in the newspaper is their bona fide opinion of the ruling establishment and therefore, it does not attract the ingredients and the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In such event, the complaint which was initiated by the third respondent/Public Prosecutor cannot be proceeded with as that would undermine the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of India under the Constitution.

¶16

Upon notice, Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao, learned counsel entered appearance for 1^st respondent and Mrs.P.Rosekamalam, learned Additional Government Pleader entered appearance for respondents 2 to 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 2nd respondent, stating that the freedom of expression is not absolute, but the same is always circumscribed by reasonable restrictions.

¶17

This Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the pleadings and materials placed before this Court.

¶18

The learned counsel would rely upon a decision of this Court rendered in Crl.O.P.No.14677 of 2017 dated 08.02.2018, wherein, the learned Judge of this Court has quashed the criminal case arising under similar circumstances. The order passed in the criminal Original Petition is extracted herein below:

¶19

"2.Though the complaint came to be filed in the year 2011 itself, the charges are yet to be framed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the trial Court had kept the matter pending for six years without any progress, the petitioner is deprived of speed and fair trial and as such, the complaint requires to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be quashed.

¶20

It is further seen that the petitioner herein is the President of political faction. The remarks which are claimed to be defamatory are from the interview given by the petitioner in a Tamil Newspaper Daily "Dhinamani" against the then Chief Minister.

¶21

On a perusal of the remarks made in the complaint, it can be clearly seen that those remarks are only a public criticism and it cannot be deemed as personal defamation. The petitioner herein has expressed these words in good faith and hence it cannot be construed to be a Public defamation.

¶22

Section 499 IPC reads as follows: "Defamation- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations, makes or published any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Explanation 1: It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2: It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation:3: An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. 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

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

generally considered as disgraceful. First Exception: Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published- It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.

¶25

Second Exception - Public conduct of public servants - It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct and no further. Third Exception - Conduct of any person touching any public question - it is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Fourth Exception - Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.- It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Explanation- A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception - Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned - It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct and no further. Sixth Exception - Merits of Public

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

performance - It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further. Explanation - A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public. Seventh Exception- Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another - It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.

¶28

Eight Exception-Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person - It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.

¶29

Ninth Exception- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests - It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. Tenth Exception - Caution intended for good or person to whom conveyed or for public good-It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one peson against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

In view of the third exception to Section 499 IPC, the offence under Section 500 IPC is not made out against the petitioner herein. While that being so, I am unable to comprehend as to how the Trial Court can proceed with the complaint for coming to a logical conclusion. Moreover, the proceedings have been unjustifiably prolonged and denial of speedy trial violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

¶32

Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No.16 of 2011 are quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."

¶33

This Court finds considerable force in the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner that freedom of expression guaranteed in the Constitution, cannot be impinged lightly or casually by foisting the criminal cases against the publisher of a newspaper. It is always the case of the News Media which adds spice to the news in order to make it more news worthy and such action on the part of the publisher/petitioner cannot be held to be per se defamatory and characterized as one made with malicious intent in order to deliberately defame the public authorities.

¶34

In view of the above, the Complaint in C.C.No.4 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, for alleged offences under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of the Indian Panel Code, is hereby quashed and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶35

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶36

//True Copy//

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

suk

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶40

¶41

1.The Secretary, Union of India,
Ministry of Law and Company Affairs,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 001.
2.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamilnadu,
Public Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
3.The City Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court Buildings,
Chennai-600 104.
+ 1 cc to Mr. P. Kumaresan, Advocate Sr.35587
+ 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.35338
+ 1 cc to Mr.J. Madanagopal Rao, Advocate SR.35298
W.P.No.25298 of 2012
PVS(CO)
EU(06/07/2018 )

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Selvam, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Selvam, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Thiyagarajan, Vs Mr. Alok Kumar Pateria, I.P.S.

G.Punniyamoorthy Vs the Secretary to the

Dr.K.Sivachandrabose Vs the Vice Chancellor

Nandini W/O. Rangakumar Vs Thiru. T.V. Somanathan, IAS

K.R.Appavu Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

D.Samuel Abraham, NO.12 I St., Vs the Registrar General of