Speech Can Only Be Construed As Dissent & Criticism About Present Tamil Nadu Govt: Madras High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against AIADMK MP C.Ve.Shanmugam
The Madras High Court, however, asked him to avoid hate speech while addressing public meetings.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court quashed a case of defamation registered against AIADMK MP C. Ve. Shanmugam, after noting that his speech could only be construed as dissent and criticism about the present Government of Tamil Nadu.
The High Court, however, asked him to avoid hate speech while addressing public meetings.
The Criminal Original Petition was filed before the High Court to quash the proceedings registered against the MP on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram under Sections 499 & 500 of IPC.
The Single Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed, “The petitioner being the member of opposite party of the State of Tamil Nadu, in a democracy the role of the opposition is to point out the failures of the Government and the short comings to the general public. The right of freedom of speech and expression and the right to hold public meetings is enshrined in the Constitution of India and there are fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizens of India. Article 19(1)(a) serves as a vehicle through in which dissent can be expressed. Therefore, the speech of the petitioner can only be construed as dissent and criticism about the present Government of Tamil Nadu”, the Bench said.
Advocate Vijay Narayan represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate (Crl.side) A. Gopinath represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
A complaint was lodged by the respondent alleging that the petitioner, a sitting member of the parliament (Rajya Sabha), while staging a demonstration organized by his Party near Thiruvallur Statue, Villupuram delivered a speech defaming the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu in a derogatory manner, intending to cause loss of reputation of the Chief Minister. The said utterances addressed to a gathering of 1000 persons over a public address system were alleged to be defamatory in nature. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 499 of IPC, punishable under Section 500 of IPC.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the entire speech spoken by the petitioner, the Bench noted that the same revealed that he had pointed out and criticized the Government for the surging prices of essential commodities and vegetables. He had also spoken about the various social issues that affect the general public due to the increase of prices of the essential commodities and the prevailing Government inadequacy to tackle the same.
“Thus, it is clear that the free speech of citizens of the country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases unless such speech has the tendency to affect the public order”, it added.
As per the Bench, the respondent failed to show cause that the public order had been disrupted because of the speech made by the petitioner. Further, the criticism was not as against the State, whereas it was on the failure of the individuals who are in charge of the affairs. Therefore, the same couldn’t be termed as defamatory in the state itself.
“The speech spoken by the petitioner must have been viewed from the eyes of the public. The petitioner's language may not be elegant and eloquent. However, distasteful that might be to the State, being the holder of a public office must be thick skinned and changed their policy decisions based on the criticism given by the opposite party”, it said. It was further held that the speech spoken by the petitioner came under the 2nd and 3rd exception of section 499 IPC which deals with public conduct of public servants and conduct of any person touching any public question. Thus, it did not amount to an offence under Section 499 of IPC. The complaint case thus came to be quashed after noticing that the cognizance of the complaint was taken in a routine manner without the application of the mind.
Highlighting the fact that the petitioner being the Member of Parliament in Rajya Sabha from Tamil Nadu and an MLA and a Minister for 10 years, he should have responsibility by criticising the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Bench said, “Though the petitioner has right of freedom of speech and expression and the right to hold public meeting under Article 19(i)(a) of the Constitution of India with some restrictions, though he had spoken for good cause about the general public problem of inflation and rise in the price of essential commodities, the petitioner should not have spoken with hate speech about the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the petitioner shall have to avoid hate speech while addressing the public meeting.”
Thus, quashing the Proceedings, the Bench allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: C.Ve. Shanmugam v. The Public Prosecutor (Case No.: Crl. O.P. No. 6317 of 2024)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Vijay Narayan, M. Mohammed Riyaz
Respondent: Government Advocate (Crl.side) A. Gopinath,