New Delhi: A court here warned Tuesday that viewing every speech and expression as defamation could reduce freedom of speech and expression “to nought,” as it dismissed a defamation case filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Rajeev Chandrasekhar against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor.
It also noted that news channels can easily fall into the scheme of sentimentalisation.
In a 36-page order, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Paras Dalal at the Rouse Avenue Court said that if every speech and expression is viewed as defamation, then freedom of speech and expression “would be reduced to nought”.
The Rouse Avenue Court has been set up for trials against sitting and former Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs).
The judge further added, “It is noteworthy to see how interviews, words, etc. can be manipulated to mean differently with some outside context or interpretation attributed to such words.”
ThePrint explains the case and what the court ruled.
Allegations against Tharoor
In September last year, then Union minister of state (MoS) for electronics and information technology, skill development and entrepreneurship, and Jal Shakti, Chandrasekhar moved court against Tharoor. In his complaint, he alleged that Tharoor, the Thiruvananthapuram MP, defamed him and damaged his reputation by accusing the BJP of bribing voters in Kerala’s Thiruvananthapuram constituency ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
The news interview was aired by 24News, Manorama and Asianet, among others, the Rouse Avenue court noted.
At the time, Chandrasekhar was the BJP candidate from Thiruvananthapuram while Tharoor was the candidate for the Congress.
The BJP leader said that Tharoor made “false, derogatory and malicious imputations” with the sole motive of maligning his reputation and political standing and with “an underlying agenda”.
The trial court took cognisance of the allegations under Sections 500 (defamation) and 171G (making false statements in connection with an election) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
IPC Section 500, analogous to Section 356 of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), stipulates a two-year-imprisonment term for defamation, a fine, or both.
Section 171G says, “Whoever with intent to affect the result of an election makes or publishes any statement purporting to be a statement of fact which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate shall be punished with fine.”
What the court decided
After summoning around 13 witnesses, including other election candidates, news channel editors, and even the concerned district election officers, the Delhi court concluded that the ingredients for the offence of defamation were not met in this case and that certain news channels had misreported Tharoor’s statements.
In its 4 February ruling, the Rouse Avenue court examined several clips and the transcript of the interviews, to say that, “The complainant however has failed to show any imputation (charge or claim) made against him by the proposed accused in any of the three interviews.”
After examining a 23-minute interview published by News24, the court said it contained “no imputation made by proposed accused against the BJP, NDA or Rajeev Chandrasekhar” of having bribed voters.
In its order, the Delhi court noted that the only reference Tharoor made was saying, “In every election, it’s natural for the BJP to spend two or three times more than us.”
Tharoor further said, “But in this election, it’s not just double or triple, we might see expenses that are 20 times, 30 times, or even 100 times more, as we observe.”
Finally, the Rouse Avenue court said that the news article presented by News24 had not been produced in its full context.
“The result is that, although in the 23 minutes video, the interviewer and interviewee can be seen to have a dialogue”, the 3:54 minute news clip published later contained only a few lines from the interviewer, without any reference to the question which was asked, it said.
A news channel can easily fall to a scheme of sentimentalisation, the court then said, while adding that in today’s age with diminishing attention spans, the news requires sensationalising and eye-catching headlines.
What the law says
Recalling the cautionary note by the Supreme Court in S. Khusboo v. Kanniammal & Anr, (2010), the court said that electronic and news media play a positive role in presenting to the general public what transpires during the course of the hearing.
In that case, the Supreme Court had also said that that news should not be published in such a manner so as to get unnecessary publicity for the newspaper or news channel.
Pointing out that Tharoor, in his answers, did not name any person or party to be bribing for votes, the Rouse Avenue Court said that he also clarified that chasing such allegations would be futile as no one would come forward to accept that they received any money or were promised it. “In such scenario neither the actus reus nor mens rea required for the office under Section 499 IPC is shown to have been made,” the court said.
Section 499 of the IPC defines the offence of criminal defamation as “Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes 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 to defame that person.”
Furthermore, citing the 2016 Supreme Court ruling in Subramaniam Swamy vs Union of India, the Rouse Avenue court said that, in matters of criminal defamation, the burden is on the magistrate to scrutinise complaints from all aspects.
It Supreme Court had also ruled that criminal defamation is a restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19, and as such any restriction needs to be viewed at a higher threshold.
“If each and every speech and expression is viewed as defamation, then freedom of speech and expression would be reduced to nought,” the Rouse Avenue Court said while emphasising that restrictions to such a fundamental right must be viewed with caution.
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also Read: Unclean & ill-equipped—the ‘sorry state’ of women’s washrooms in Delhi’s district courts