Supreme Court Issues Stay on Defamation Proceedings Against Shashi Tharoor

Supreme Court Issues Stay on Defamation Proceedings Against Shashi Tharoor

On September 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of India stayed the defamation proceedings against Shashi Tharoor, a sitting Member of Parliament, while hearing his appeal in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) related to remarks made in 2018. The complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), accusing Tharoor of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for statements he made referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Background of the Case

The controversy stems from a speech made by Shashi Tharoor on October 28, 2018, where he quoted a metaphor that had previously appeared in an article published in The Caravan Magazine on March 1, 2012. Tharoor referenced the metaphor, allegedly made by an unnamed source in the RSS, describing Prime Minister Modi as a "scorpion sitting on a Shivling," a remark meant to illustrate the difficulty of managing Modi's leadership.

According to the complaint, while the 2012 article did not face any backlash at the time of its publication, Tharoor's repetition of the metaphor in 2018 was perceived as defamatory by the complainant. The complainant contended that the quote, in light of Modi’s growing popularity and position as the Prime Minister, was offensive and had been deliberately revived to cause harm.

Complaint and Initial Legal Proceedings

The complaint was lodged under Section 499 (defamation) and Section 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC. The Delhi Magistrate’s Court took cognizance of the case on April 27, 2019, and summoned Tharoor to appear before the court for trial.

Tharoor challenged this summons in the Delhi High Court, which initially stayed the defamation proceedings on October 16, 2020. However, in a judgment dated August 29, 2024, the High Court dismissed Tharoor's petition to quash the defamation proceedings, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Tharoor’s Arguments in the Supreme Court

Representing Shashi Tharoor, Advocate Muhammad Ali Khan argued that:

1. The complainant could not be considered an "aggrieved person" under Section 199 of the CrPC, as he had no direct connection to the alleged defamation.

2. The remarks made by Tharoor should be interpreted in good faith under Exceptions 8 and 9 of Section 499 IPC, which provide exemptions for comments made in public interest or as an expression of opinion without intent to harm.

3. The remarks were a repetition of a previously published statement that had not generated any controversy or legal action when initially printed in 2012.

Tharoor's legal team cited Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India (2016), where the Supreme Court had elaborated on the concept of "some person aggrieved" under Section 199 CrPC. The counsel argued that not everyone could claim to be aggrieved in cases of defamation, and the complainant’s personal or direct interest in the case needed to be established.

Supreme Court’s Interim Order

The Supreme Court, while hearing the matter on September 10, 2024, acknowledged Tharoor's arguments and issued a notice to the respondent, seeking a response within four weeks. In the interim, the Court ordered a stay on the defamation proceedings, pausing the trial until the next hearing.

The Importance of Section 199 CrPC and Exceptions Under Section 499 IPC

Section 199 of the CrPC outlines who can file a defamation case, stating that only an "aggrieved person" can do so. This section plays a crucial role in defamation law, limiting the scope of who may bring forth a complaint.

Exceptions 8 and 9 of Section 499 IPC further safeguard freedom of speech by protecting statements made in good faith or in the interest of the public. Tharoor’s defense rests on these exceptions, arguing that the quote was not made with malicious intent but as a political commentary.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s stay provides temporary relief to Shashi Tharoor, suspending the defamation trial. The case raises key questions about freedom of speech, public interest comments, and the scope of defamation law. The next hearing will determine whether the defamation proceedings should be quashed or whether Tharoor must face trial.