Defamation Complaint By Banned Organization Will Not Stand: Kerala HC Quashes Defamation Case By PFI Against Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Ltd.
The Kerala High Court quashed the criminal prosecution initiated by the PFI against Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Ltd. after observing that a complaint of defamation from a banned organization cannot stand.
The Court allowed the Petition filed by the editors and publishers (Petitioner) of the Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Ltd. to quash the defamation case filed by the Popular Front of India (PFI) under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC alleging defamation based on an article published in 2017.
A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan held, “This Court perused the article published by the petitioners, which according to the 1st respondent is defamatory. These are only some of the allegations against the Popular Front of India which is available in the public domain at that stage. Subsequently, the Popular Front of India itself was banned by the Central Government for the reasons mentioned in the order of banning. In such circumstances, according to me, a complaint of defamation against the petitioners will not stand from a banned organization.”
Advocate Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate E.A. Haris represented the Respondents.
The defamation complaint arose from an article published alleging the PFI’s involvement in acts such as the Bangalore serial blasts and the hand-chopping incident of Professor T.J. Joseph. The complainant claimed that the article damaged the organization’s reputation.
The Petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that the PFI, being a banned organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, could not initiate defamation proceedings.
The High Court stated that the PFI was declared as a banned organization in the country by the Government. “The Ministry of Home Affairs declared that the Central Government, having regard to the circumstances mentioned in the above order, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, declared the Popular Front of India and its associates or affiliates or fronts including Rehab India Foundation, Campus Front of India, All India Imams Council, National Confederation of Human Rights Organization, National Women’s Front, Junior Front, Empower India Foundation and Rehab Foundation, Kerala as an unlawful association,” it pointed out.
Hence, the Court held that “it cannot be said that there is defamation to a banned association because of certain publication by the petitioners.”
While the Court noted that the definition of "person" under Section 11 of the IPC includes associations or bodies, whether incorporated or not, it clarified that this does not extend to organizations that have been declared unlawful and banned.
Consequently, the Court held, “Therefore, the Popular Front of India may come within the definition of 'person' as defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. But when ‘the Popular Front of India’ itself is banned in India by the Central Government, such a banned association will not come within the purview of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, because, a banned association has no legal entity. For that simple reason, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution against the petitioners is to be quashed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Ltd. & Ors. v. C.P. Mohammed Basheer & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:89286)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar and V.S.Thoshin
Respondents: Advocate E.A. Haris; PP Sangeetharaj. N.R
