Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1458 (MAD)

T. Sivagnanasambandan v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha

2002-11-22

MALAI SUBRAMANIAN

body2002
ORDER: The revision has been directed against the order passed by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No. 8451 of 2002 dismissing the complaint filed by the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Sec. 500, I.P.C. against the respondent. 2. The petitioner is a practising advocate and a member of the Congress Party led by Tmt. Sonia Gandhi. The respondent, who is the General Secretary of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam was said to have made a statement on 28.8.2002 at Delhi in a Press Meet stating that Tmt. Sonia Gandhi is a foreigner and though she is a citizen of India, she is only a foreigner and she will not be accepted as Prime Minister of India. According to the petitioner, the further statement is that the people belonging to Congress Party are trying to make Tmt. Sonia Gandhi as Prime Minister of India and it amounts to cheating and it is a shame. This statement, according to the revision petitioner amounts to defamation. 3. To constitute an offence of defamation the person speaking the words must make an imputation concerning a person, to harm the reputation of such person or knowing or having the reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person. Either intention to harm the person against whom any imputation is made or knowledge or reasonable belief that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person is the basic ingredient to constitute an offence of defamation. 4. Explanation 4 to Sec. 499 which defines defamation reads thus: “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 mat person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or causes 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 generally considered as disgraceful”. 5. Keeping in mind the above provisions, I am inclined to hold that the statement said to have made by the respondent in this case does not amount to an imputation that may lower the moral or intellectual character of the person against whom the alleged imputation was said to have been made. 6. 5. Keeping in mind the above provisions, I am inclined to hold that the statement said to have made by the respondent in this case does not amount to an imputation that may lower the moral or intellectual character of the person against whom the alleged imputation was said to have been made. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that despite the fact that Tmt. Sonia Gandhi was declared as citizen of India, she cannot be said to be a foreigner and hence the statement of the respondent that she is a foreigner amounts to a defamatory statement. The speech of the respondent even as quoted by the revision petitioner in his complaint reveals that the respondent has stated that though Tmt. Sonia Gandhi is a Citizen of India, still she is a foreigner. From this it is clear that the citizenship of Tmt. Sonia Gandhi is not under attack, but it has only been stated that she is of foreign origin. This, according to me, cannot be considered to be a defamatory statement by any stretch of imagination. 7. The next contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petition is that the statement of the respondent that the people belonging to the Congress Party are trying to make Tmt. Sonia Gandhi as Prime Minister of India amounts to cheating and it is a shame, amounts to defamation against the members of the said party including the revision petitioner. Unless the words spoken to by the respondent are held to be imputation lowering the moral or intellectual character of the person against whom those words were spoken, the person speaking those words cannot be tried for an offence of defamation. At the best, the statement said to have been made by the respondent that the attempt to forge a foreigner as Prime Minister of India is a shameful act, has been made only to dissuade the Congress Party men from forging Tmt. Sonia Gandhi to Prime Ministership. If an act is said to be shameful, it does not per se amount to defamation so long as it has not been indicated that the said act has lowered the moral or intellectual character of the person against whom the imputation has been made or it has affected the credit of that person in respect of his or her caste or calling. Lowering the credit means lowering the reputation of the said person. The act of dissuading the members of a party from forging their leader to the Prime Ministership does not amount to defamation. The imputation should be so grave that it affects the very reputation of the person concerned. There is absolutely no personal allegation against Tmt. Sonia Gandhi either intending to harm her reputation or knowing or having reason to believe that the imputation will harm her reputation. Therefore, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of defamation are not present in the speech said to have been made by the respondent as quoted by the revision petitioner in his complaint. Therefore, on that score alone, the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint cannot be interfered with. 8. The next contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the learned Magistrate went wrong in holding that sanction is required to prosecute the respondent since the respondent has not been prosecuted by virtue of her position as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, but as General Secretary of a political party. As admitted by the revision petitioner, the respondent is holding dual posts. She is the General Secretary of A.I.A.D.M.K. party and she is also the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. When a person who is holding two posts is sought to be prosecuted, it is for the person to elect as to under which capacity she made that statement and it is not for the prosecutor to decide that she made the statement in a particular capacity. Therefore, it cannot be said that sanction is not required to prosecute the respondent. 9. The last contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the learned Magistrate is wrong in holding that the revision petitioner has no locus standi to file the complaint as he is not the person aggrieved. Insofar as this contention is concerned, since the statement said to have been made by the respondent consists of two parts - one against Tmt. Sonia Gandhi and the other against the congress men including the revision petitioner, he cannot be said to be a person not aggrieved so long as it is held that he does belong to the said party provided the later part of the statement amounts to defamation. Sonia Gandhi and the other against the congress men including the revision petitioner, he cannot be said to be a person not aggrieved so long as it is held that he does belong to the said party provided the later part of the statement amounts to defamation. As I have held supra, the entire statement alleged to have been made by the respondent does not attract the mischief of Sec. 499, I.P.C. and there is no cause of action for the alleged offence. 10. In view of the above discussions, I see no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 11. Hence, the revision stands dismissed.