Peaceful Protest By Consumer A Corresponding Right To Commercial Speech By Seller: Supreme Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Homebuyers
|The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the issuance of summons against the homebuyers.
The Supreme Court quashed a defamation case filed against a group of homebuyers by a builder, M/s A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd., while remarking that a right to protest peacefully without falling foul of the law is a corresponding right, which the consumers ought to possess just as the seller enjoys his right to commercial speech.
The Court allowed the Appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the issuance of summons against the homebuyers for an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. The Court noted that the homebuyers, in a “mild and temperate language,” only aired certain issues, which they perceived as their grievances against the builder.
A Bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice N Kotiswar Singh remarked that “We find that the manner of the protest resorted to by the appellants was peaceful and orderly and without in any manner using offensive or abusive language. It could not be said that the appellants crossed the Lakshman Rekha and transgressed into the offending zone. Their case wholly falls within the sweep, scope and ambit of exception 9 to Section 499. Their peaceful protest is protected by Article 19(1)(a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India. The criminal proceedings levelled against them, if allowed to continue, will be a clear abuse of process.”
AOR Sureshan P. represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Prasenjit Keswani appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The dispute arose when the Appellant-homebuyers, dissatisfied with the developer's services, erected a banner detailing their grievances. The banner, displayed in English and Hindi, listed several complaints, including the developer's failure to form a society, provide society accounts, address construction defects, and resolve water and maintenance issues.
In response, the Respondent-developer threatened to sue the homebuyers for defamation and subsequently filed a criminal complaint under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC when they refused to apologise. The Trial Court issued summons against the homebuyers, a decision upheld by the High Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted the Respondent's grievance that the banner defamed their image and reputation. However, the Court also considered the Appellants' argument that the banner merely highlighted factual grievances related to the developer's contractual obligations and the residents' hardships.
“In a business relationship like that of a builder and homebuyer, certain allowances in the use of phraseology in communication should be provided as long as the deployment of the phraseology in question is based on good faith,” the Bench remarked.
The Court referred to its decision in Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (1995) wherein it was held that “commercial speech was part of freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). This Court held that in a democratic economy free flow of commercial information is indispensable.”
“A right to protest peacefully without falling foul of the law is a corresponding right, which the consumers ought to possess just as the seller enjoys his right to commercial speech. Any attempt to portray them as criminal offences, when the necessary ingredients are not made out, would be a clear abuse of process and should be nipped in the bud,” the Court held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order…passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay is set aside.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Shahed Kamal & Ors. v. M/S A. Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 502)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Sureshan P.; Advocates Ajay Panicker, Shivam Yadav and Lavnya Panicker
Respondents: Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Prasenjit Keswani; AOR V. D. Khanna and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande; Advocates Nitin Sangra, Upmanyu Tewari, Syed Kamran Ali, Arjun Varma, Abhishek Sagar, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar and Siddharth Dharmadhikari