Supreme Court Quashes Defamation Case After Unconditional Withdrawal of Statements: Tejashwi Prasad Yadav vs. Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta (2024) INSC 108

Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 108
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can a criminal defamation case continue if the person who made the allegedly defamatory statement withdraws it unconditionally? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a public statement made by a political figure. The court considered whether the unconditional withdrawal of the statement and the explanation of the context in which it was made, warranted the quashing of the defamation complaint. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Case Background

The case began with a private complaint filed by Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta (the respondent) against Tejashwi Prasad Yadav (the petitioner) in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The complaint alleged that Mr. Yadav had committed the offense of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. The basis of the complaint was a public statement made by Mr. Yadav on 22nd March 2023, which was widely reported in the media.

The respondent contended that Mr. Yadav’s statement, which included the phrase, *“Only Gujarati can be thugs,”* defamed the entire Gujarati community. The respondent argued that this statement led people from other communities to view Gujaratis as criminals. At the time of the complaint, Mr. Yadav was the Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, issued a summons to Mr. Yadav on 28th August 2023, following the complaint. Mr. Yadav then filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court, seeking to move the case from Ahmedabad to Delhi. The Supreme Court issued notice on 6th November 2023, and stayed the proceedings of the complaint. The Court noted that Mr. Yadav’s counsel would seek instructions from him regarding the matter.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines defamation, and Section 500 of the IPC, which prescribes the punishment for defamation.

Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code states:
“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.”

Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code states:
“Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Additionally, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice.

Arguments

The respondent argued that Mr. Yadav’s statement, specifically the use of the word “thug” in reference to Gujaratis, was defamatory and had caused the Gujarati community to be viewed negatively by others. The respondent contended that the statement was made publicly and was widely circulated through media.

Mr. Yadav, on the other hand, initially clarified that his statement was made in the context of a question regarding the revocation of a Red Corner Notice against Mehul Choksi. He stated that he was responding to the failure of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to deal with alleged swindlers. He initially withdrew part of his statement, specifically the phrase *”Only Gujarati may be swindler and these swindlers may be exonerated.”* Later, he unconditionally withdrew the entire statement and clarified that he had no intention to defame Gujaratis as a community. He also expressed his high regard for the Gujarati community, noting that Mahatma Gandhi was from Gujarat.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the defamation case should be quashed given that the petitioner had unconditionally withdrawn the allegedly defamatory statements and clarified the context in which they were made.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered Section 499 and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which define defamation and prescribe its punishment, respectively. The Court also invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice.

Judgment

The Supreme Court noted that while every defamation case cannot be quashed simply because the offending allegations have been withdrawn, the specific facts of this case warranted such action. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had not only withdrawn the statements but had also explained the circumstances and the context in which they were made. The Court stated that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose and would be unjust.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the defamation case was primarily influenced by the petitioner’s unconditional withdrawal of the allegedly defamatory statements and his explanation of the context in which they were made. The Court also considered the petitioner’s expression of high regard for the Gujarati community and his clarification that he had no intention to defame them. The court emphasized that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose and would be unjust given these circumstances.

The court’s decision was influenced by both factual aspects of the case (the withdrawal and explanation of the statements) and legal considerations (the powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice).

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ A defamation case can be quashed if the person who made the allegedly defamatory statement withdraws it unconditionally and explains the context in which it was made.
• ✓ The Supreme Court can use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice in such cases.
• ✓ The court will consider the intent behind the statement and whether the person who made the statement has expressed regret.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal case bearing no. CC/83849/2023 arising out of the case no. CR/EN/7110/2023, titled Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta versus Tejaswi Lalu Prasad Yadav, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a defamation case can be quashed when the accused unconditionally withdraws the allegedly defamatory statements, explains the context, and expresses no intention to defame the aggrieved party. This decision underscores the importance of context and intent in defamation cases and highlights the Supreme Court’s power to ensure complete justice. This ruling does not change any previous position of law but rather applies existing principles to a specific factual scenario.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the defamation case against Tejashwi Prasad Yadav demonstrates the court’s willingness to consider the specific circumstances of a case, especially when the accused has taken steps to rectify the situation. By unconditionally withdrawing his statements and explaining the context, Mr. Yadav was able to put an end to the legal proceedings against him. This judgment reinforces the importance of intent and context in defamation cases and highlights the court’s commitment to ensuring justice.