Calling A Person Corrupt Is Defamatory; There's Right To Criticize But Not To Defame: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Court was of the view that “there is a right to criticism but not a right to abuse and defame any person” and the same cannot be justified by resorting to Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

The Complaint was filed by the Minister of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh alleging that a defamatory statement was made during a press conference against him. He was accused of not touring Kinnaur District and yet withdrawing the travel allowance allotted for the same and indulging in corruption.

A Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed, “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.”

Advocate Nitin Thakur represented the petitioner.

The Trial Court dismissed the complaint and held that the right to speech and expression is a fundamental right. The Court remarked that the opposition has a right to criticize the ruling party and such criticism is essential for a vibrant democracy. The trial court held that there was no mens rea and that politicians should not be thin-skinned and hypersensitive.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, a revision petition was filed before the High Court asserting that the Trial Court failed to apply its mind to the controversy in issue. The petitioner contended that the statement amounted to defamation and did not fall within any of the exceptions. The petitioner argued that the right of criticism did not extend to hurling abuses and defamation.

The High Court recognised that “the statement made by the accused- respondent that the petitioner had withdrawn the excess amount can amount to criticism of the public official and exposure of his acts.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.”

Stating that the “Trial Court was swayed by Article 19 of the Constitution,” the Court held that the Trial Court was in error to hold that it is justified to call someone corrupt and “such a right cannot be given to anyone as long as the offence of defamation exists in the statute books.”

The Court, addressing a complaint under Section 504 of IPC, held that there was no indication that the accused's words were intended to provoke the complainant or to commit a breach of peace, making it insufficient to summon the accused under Section 504. Similarly, charges under under Section 505 (cv) IPC were also not substantiated.

The High Court set aside the Order of the Trial Court and partly allowed the revision petition.

Cause Title: Jagat Singh Negi v. Surat Singh Negi

Click here to read/download the Judgment