New Delhi: The Punjab and Haryana High Court Friday declined to grant relief to Bollywood actor and Lok Sabha member, Kangana Ranaut, in a criminal defamation case filed against her remarks while sharing a social media post during the farmers’ protest in 2021.
A bench of Justice Tribhuva Dahiya observed that there was no evidence to show that her statement supporting a post on Twitter, now called ‘X’, was made in good faith or for public good.
Dismissing the plea filed by Kangana’s lawyers to quash the defamation case against her, a bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya noted: “…There is no substance in the next submission by learned counsel for the petitioner that the retweet was in good faith, and in the absence of mens rea (malice) she was entitled to the benefit of the Ninth and Tenth Exception to Section 499 IPC.”
The Ninth and Tenth Exception of the 499 IPC are exceptions in the criminal defamation law that are available to the accused in certain circumstances to defend himself or herself.
“There are specific allegations against the petitioner who is a celebrity, that false and defamatory imputations by her in the retweet have dented the respondent’s reputation and lowered her in her own estimation, as also in the eyes of others,” the bench observed in a short 16-page order.
Also read: Kangana lands BJP in tough spot yet again amid Mandi rain havoc. Nadda in damage control mode
Case origins & arguments made
The case against Kangana stemmed from a criminal complaint filed against her in Bathinda, Punjab, in January 2021, by one Mahinder Kaur, under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with the offence of criminal defamation, and the punishment for the same.
Although in February 2022, Kangana was summoned by the court in connection with this case, her lawyer challenged the summons, and said Kangana had only made the retweet in good faith, and without any intention to harm Kaur’s reputation.
Through her lawyer, Kangana also argued that without any element of mens rea or malice, there was no occasion for the magistrate to proceed against her.
Pointing out that Kangana’s remarks were a part of a retweet, and not an actual tweet, Kangana’s lawyer also said that the complaint against her was “mala fide” or made with ill intent, since Kaur filed it only against the actor, and not against Adhivakta Gautam Yadav, who had posted the original tweet.
Kaur’s case against Kangana
In her plea, Kaur said that she belonged to an agricultural family, and her father, husband and children were all farmers, who derived their income from agriculture. Kaur added that she too used to help her family in the cultivation of agricultural lands, and was aggrieved after the farm laws were passed nearly five years back, in 2020.
Owing to this, she, along with her family, actively participated in protests, held by different farmers or kisan unions. Despite her old age, Kaur, along with other protesters, travelled to Delhi to participate in the agitation.
However, the problem arose when Kangana took to Twitter (now X) and retweeted a picture of Kaur, along with the caption, “Ha ha ha, she is the same dadi who featured in Time magazine for being the most powerful Indian…. And she is available for Rs 100. Pakistani journos have hijacked international PR for India in an embarrassing way. We need our own people to speak for us internationally.”
Rejecting these allegations, Kaur told the court that she had nothing to do with the ‘Dadi’ from Shaheen Bagh, who was featured in the Time magazine article that Kangana was referring to.
Pointing out that the statements were “false and defamatory”, Kaur said they hurt her pride, honour and defamed her on social media, while adding that she fell in her own estimation and those of the protesting farmers. Kaur also told the court that various Bollywood celebrities, and Punjabi singers had also shared the said tweet.
Kaur also said that it was indisputable that Kangana had herself posted the retweet in question which was defamatory on the face of it, and contained serious allegations against the person and character of the complainant.
Defamation and when it is exempt
Essentially, Section 499 says, “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, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.”
There are ten exceptions to defamation, where one can be exempted. In Kangana’s case, she relied on the defence that the defamatory statement was made with caution, for the good of the person to whom it was conveyed or even for public good, and in good faith to protect others.
While the Ninth Exception exempts statements made in good faith by a person for protection of their or other’s interests, the Tenth Exception immunises statements which are conveyed in caution, in good faith, and for public good.
What the court ruled
Kaur, by filing a complaint to vindicate her rights could not be said to have acted in a “malafide” manner, the court said.
The court said, there was no substance in the contention that Kangana made the tweet in good faith, and without any malice, and also that her case did not fall into any one of the exceptions to defamation.
The court said the criminal complaint against Kangana would remain pending, and left it open to the magistrate to decide on it.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Kangana Ranaut is now a Manali restaurant owner. It’s called ‘The Mountain Story’