Supreme Court quashes defamation case against K.K. Mishra: A case of misuse of Section 199(2) CrPC

Date of the Judgment: 13 April 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 303

Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., R. Banumathi, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a defamation case be initiated against a person for statements made about a public servant if those statements are not directly related to the discharge of their public duties? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving alleged defamatory remarks against the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh. The court examined whether the special procedure under Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), was correctly invoked, and whether the Public Prosecutor acted independently in filing the complaint. This judgment clarifies the scope of defamation laws concerning public officials and the necessary connection between alleged defamatory statements and the public duties of the concerned official. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi, and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the opinion authored by Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

Case Background

The case arose from a press conference held on June 21, 2014, by K.K. Mishra, who was then the Chief Spokesperson of the Indian National Congress in Madhya Pradesh. During this conference, Mr. Mishra made certain statements regarding the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh. Following these statements, a criminal complaint was filed against Mr. Mishra for defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The complaint was filed by the Public Prosecutor after receiving sanction from the State Government on June 24, 2014. The core issue was whether the statements made by Mr. Mishra were directly related to the Chief Minister’s discharge of public duties, thus warranting the special procedure under Section 199(2) of the CrPC. The complaint was filed before the District & Sessions Judge, Bhopal.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section provides a special procedure for initiating prosecution for defamation against constitutional functionaries and public servants. It stipulates that such cases must be initiated by the Public Prosecutor, not by the aggrieved individual directly. The provision states that the offence must be in respect of acts/conduct in the discharge of public functions of the concerned functionary or public servant.
• Section 199(4) of the CrPC: This section requires the Public Prosecutor to obtain prior sanction from the Competent Authority in the State/Central Government before filing a complaint under Section 199(2) of the CrPC.
• Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the offense of defamation.
• Section 500 of the IPC: This section provides the punishment for the offense of defamation.

The Supreme Court noted that Section 199(2) CrPC is a departure from the normal rule of initiating a complaint before a Magistrate by the affected person. This special procedure is intended to protect the interests of the State when defamation is related to the discharge of public functions.

Arguments

The arguments in this case centered on whether the statements made by K.K. Mishra were related to the public duties of the Chief Minister, thus justifying the invocation of Section 199(2) of the CrPC. The following points were raised:

• Appellant’s Argument:
  • The statements made by K.K. Mishra during the press conference were not related to the discharge of public duties by the Chief Minister.
  • The statements pertained to personal matters and allegations of nepotism and corruption, which do not fall under the ambit of public functions.
  • The Public Prosecutor did not independently assess the merits of the complaint but acted solely on the directions of the State Government, thereby violating the principles of fairness and independence.
• Respondent’s Argument:
  • The State argued that the statements made by K.K. Mishra were defamatory and affected the reputation of the Chief Minister, who is a public servant.
  • The State contended that the statements were made during a press conference, which is a public forum, and therefore, the special procedure under Section 199(2) CrPC was rightly invoked.

The core of the appellant’s argument was that the special procedure under Section 199(2) of the CrPC is only applicable when the defamatory statements are directly related to the discharge of public duties. The appellant contended that the statements made were personal in nature and did not have a reasonable nexus with the Chief Minister’s public functions.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in highlighting the lack of nexus between the alleged defamatory statements and the public duties of the Chief Minister, thereby challenging the very basis of invoking Section 199(2) CrPC. The argument also focused on the Public Prosecutor’s lack of independent assessment, pointing out a procedural flaw.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for consideration:

1. Whether the statements made by the accused appellant in the Press Conference, which have been taken note of in the order dated 24th June, 2014 granting sanction/ permission, can legitimately be said to be attributable or connected with the discharge of public functions of the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister.

The Supreme Court also considered the sub-issue of whether the Public Prosecutor acted independently and applied his mind to the materials before filing the complaint.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• P.C. Joshi and another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1961 SC 387] (Supreme Court of India): This case dealt with the rationale for the special procedure under Section 198B of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which is similar to Section 199 of the CrPC. The Court held that defamation against public functionaries is an offense against the State, justifying the special procedure.
• Urmila Devi vs. Yudhvir Singh [(2013) 15 SCC 624] (Supreme Court of India): This case discussed the meaning of “official duty” in the context of Section 197 CrPC, which requires sanction for prosecuting a public servant. The Court held that there must be a direct and reasonable nexus between the nature of duties and the act constituting an offense.
• Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India [(2016) 7 SCC 221] (Supreme Court of India): This case upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 IPC, emphasizing that Section 199(2) and 199(4) CrPC provide a safeguard requiring the Public Prosecutor to independently assess the materials before filing a defamation complaint.
• Bairam Muralidhar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2014) 10 SCC 380] (Supreme Court of India): This case dealt with Section 321 CrPC (withdrawal from prosecution) and held that the Public Prosecutor cannot act like a post office on behalf of the State Government but must act in good faith and form an independent opinion.

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with sanction for prosecution of a public servant.
• Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with withdrawal from prosecution.
• Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the offense of defamation.
• Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section provides the punishment for the offense of defamation.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the statements made by K.K. Mishra did not have a reasonable connection with the discharge of public duties by the Chief Minister. The Court also found that the Public Prosecutor did not act independently but filed the complaint on the orders of the State Government.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court used P.C. Joshi and another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1961 SC 387] (Supreme Court of India)* to understand the rationale behind the special procedure under Section 199(2) CrPC, emphasizing that it is meant for cases where defamation affects the State’s interests due to the public duties of the functionary.
• The Court applied the principles of Urmila Devi vs. Yudhvir Singh [(2013) 15 SCC 624] (Supreme Court of India)* to define “official duty” and to establish that there must be a direct nexus between the act and the public duty.
• The Court relied on Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India [(2016) 7 SCC 221] (Supreme Court of India)* to underscore that Section 199(2) and 199(4) CrPC provide a safeguard that requires the Public Prosecutor to independently assess the materials before filing a defamation complaint.
• The Court cited Bairam Muralidhar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2014) 10 SCC 380] (Supreme Court of India)* to emphasize that the Public Prosecutor cannot act as a mere agent of the State but must apply his mind independently.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of a reasonable connection between the alleged defamatory statements and the public duties of the Chief Minister. The Court also emphasized the importance of the Public Prosecutor’s independent assessment, highlighting that the Public Prosecutor cannot act as a mere agent of the State Government. The Court was also concerned about the haste with which the complaint was filed, indicating a lack of due diligence.

The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual analysis (the nature of the statements and the circumstances of the case) and legal interpretation (the requirements of Section 199(2) CrPC and the role of the Public Prosecutor). The legal considerations weighed more heavily in the court’s decision.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the State’s argument that the statements were defamatory and affected the reputation of a public servant. However, the Court rejected this argument because the statements did not pertain to the discharge of public duties. The Court emphasized that the special procedure under Section 199(2) CrPC is not meant to be used for personal grievances but for matters directly related to public functions.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The statements made by K.K. Mishra did not have a reasonable nexus with the discharge of public duties by the Chief Minister.
• The Public Prosecutor did not act independently but filed the complaint on the orders of the State Government, which is contrary to the requirements of Section 199(2) CrPC.
• The haste with which the complaint was filed indicated a lack of due diligence and independent assessment by the Public Prosecutor.

“The appointment of persons from the area/place to which the wife of the Hon’ble Chief Minister belongs and the making of phone calls by the relatives of the Hon’ble Chief Minister have no reasonable nexus with the discharge of public duties by or the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister.”

“It is ordinarily expected that the Public Prosecutor has a duty to scan the materials on the basis of which a complaint for defamation is to be filed. He has a duty towards the court.”

“A Public Prosecutor filing a complaint under Section 199 (2) Cr.P.C. without due satisfaction that the materials/allegations in complaint discloses an offence against an Authority or against a public functionary which adversely affects the interests of the State would be abhorrent to the principles on the basis of which the special provision under Section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C. has been structured.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The three-judge bench unanimously agreed on the decision.

The court’s reasoning involved a close examination of the facts of the case, the relevant legal provisions, and the precedents set by previous judgments. The court emphasized the need for a direct nexus between the alleged defamatory statements and the public duties of the public servant. It also highlighted the importance of the Public Prosecutor’s independent role in such cases.

The decision has significant implications for future cases involving defamation against public servants. It clarifies that the special procedure under Section 199(2) CrPC cannot be invoked for personal grievances but only for cases where the alleged defamation is directly related to the discharge of public duties. It also reinforces the importance of the Public Prosecutor’s independent role in such cases.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. Instead, it reaffirmed the existing principles and interpreted them in the context of the specific facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

• The special procedure under Section 199(2) of the CrPC for defamation cases against public servants is only applicable when the alleged defamatory statements are directly related to the discharge of their public duties.
• The Public Prosecutor must act independently and cannot simply follow the orders of the State Government when filing a complaint under Section 199(2) of the CrPC.
• The Public Prosecutor has a duty to assess the materials and form an independent opinion before filing a complaint, ensuring that the complaint is in the interest of justice and not just the State.
• Defamation cases that do not relate to the public duties of a public servant should be filed in the ordinary courts, not under the special procedure of Section 199(2) CrPC.

This judgment has significant implications for future cases, as it sets a precedent that will prevent the misuse of Section 199(2) of the CrPC for personal grievances against public servants. It reinforces the principle that public servants are not immune to criticism, but that defamation cases must be based on a nexus between the statements and public duties.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the impugned prosecution/proceedings registered and numbered as Sessions Session Trial No.573 of 2014. The Court also set aside the order dated 17th November, 2017, passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, convicting the accused appellant under Section 500 IPC and sentencing him. The appeal pending before the High Court against the order dated 17th November, 2017, was also closed. The bail bond of the accused was discharged.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendment in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the special procedure under Section 199(2) of the CrPC for defamation cases against public servants is only applicable when the alleged defamatory statements are directly related to the discharge of their public duties. The Public Prosecutor must act independently and cannot simply follow the orders of the State Government. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding defamation and the role of the Public Prosecutor, rather than introducing new legal doctrines.

Conclusion

In the case of K.K. Mishra vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court quashed the defamation proceedings initiated against K.K. Mishra, emphasizing that the special procedure under Section 199(2) of the CrPC is only applicable when the alleged defamatory statements are directly related to the discharge of public duties. The Court also highlighted the importance of the Public Prosecutor’s independent assessment and the need for a reasonable nexus between the statements and the public duties of the concerned public servant. This judgment serves as an important reminder that the special procedure under Section 199(2) CrPC cannot be misused for personal grievances and that the Public Prosecutor must act independently and in the interest of justice.