Publishing Derogatory Words Again By Redisplaying Publication Already Made Will Attract Offence Of Defamation: Kerala High Court

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the accused persons under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the proceedings against them in a case registered under Section 500 of the IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice G. Girish held, “If it is shown that the derogatory words about the complainant, which were published by the accused, contained any imputation, which would harm the reputation of the complainant, then the fact that the words so published were already there in the public domain, do not absolve the criminal liability of the accused, who ventured to publish those derogatory words again by redisplaying the publication already made through another media. Unless the act of the accused would come under any of the seven exceptions envisaged under Section 499 I.P.C, the accused cannot be absolved of the criminal liability for the publication of the derogatory words for the reason that those words were already published by some other accused through another platform.”

Advocate Thoufeek Ahamed represented the Petitioner, while Advocate R.Bindu represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

In connection with the arrest of a prominent film actor for his involvement in the rape of an actress, there was a difference of opinion between the complainant, who is an actor and a director, and the first accused, who is also involved in the film field. The complainant supported the above actor, whereas the first accused strongly criticised that actor. Due to the above rift, the first accused posted highly derogatory statements against the complainant in a Facebook collective by the name ‘People TV Debate Forum’, where the complainant was also a member. As per the complainant, the highly defamatory statements made by the first accused in that Facebook group were redisplayed by the second accused (Vellinakshathram publication), the third accused (who is the Editor-in-Chief of a website maintained by the second accused publication) and the fourth accused, who is the Editor of that website.

It was the complainant’s case that his colleagues watched the defamatory statements published on the website of the accused persons, as a result of which, those persons started thinking that the complainant was a person of deplorable character. As per the complainant, the publication made by the accused persons on their website contained an imputation harming the reputation of the complainant. The Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C, and issued a summons to the accused to appear and face trial for the commission of an offence under Section 500 I.P.C. The petitioners approached the High Court on the ground that the offence of defamation was not attracted, and hence the proceedings against them were liable to be quashed.

Reasoning

Considering that Section 499 I.P.C does not make any distinction between a defamatory publication, which is made for the first time, and the redisplay of a defamatory publication, which had already been made in another media, the Bench rejected the first contention of the petitioners that the redisplaying on the website of the second petitioner, an objectionable publication which had already been made in another social media platform, would not constitute the offence under Section 500.

On a perusal of the words attributed to the complainant/second respondent, the Bench noted that same prima facie showed that those words were of such a nature as to lower the moral and intellectual character of the complainant in the estimation of others.“The petitioners, by quoting the above words used by the first accused, in their website, have committed the act of publishing those words of highly defamatory contents, capable of harming the reputation of the complainant. The sworn statement of the complainant would reveal that many of his friends and well wishers got a negative impression about the character of the complainant by reading the above derogatory words published in the website of the petitioners. Therefore, it is apparent that the matter which the petitioners published in their website, was highly defamatory to the complainant”, the order read.

Thus, holding that the prayer of the petitioners to quash the complaint, cannot be allowed, the Bench dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Vellinakshathram v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:19976)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Thoufeek Ahamed, P.A. Ahammed

Respondent: Advocates R.Bindu (Sasthamangalam), B. Mohanlal, R. Jayakrishnan, Prasanth M.P., Public Prosecutor Sudheer.G

Click here to read/download Order