BENGALURU: Rejecting the contention of the BJP that it is a political party and not a ‘person’ to initiate defamation proceedings against it, the Karnataka High Court said that not just a person, even an association of individuals including entities like political parties can be arrayed as accused in the criminal defamation cases.
“I am of the considered opinion that the word ‘whoever’ inter alia employed in sections 499 and 500 of IPC implicitly includes an association of individuals, whether incorporated or not like the petitioner herein and such entities can be arrayed as accused in criminal proceedings of the kind”, said Justice Krishna S Dixit while dismissing the petition filed by BJP, represented by its the then president Nalin Kumar Kateel, questioning the defamatory case filed by Congress MLA Rizwan Arshad.
BJP moved the court questioning the case pending before the Magistrate Court to try cases against former and sitting MPs and MLAs in the city, based on the private complaint filed by Rizwan, for alleged defamatory tweets made by BJP against him in 2019, under Section 499 read with Section 500 of IPC.
The BJP had made allegations about fabricating fake voter ID cards and Rizwan was behind this racket. The Magistrate took cognisance of the offence and issued summons to the BJP.
The BJP contended that it is a political party is not a ‘person’, the same being only a ‘society’ or ‘association of persons’; such entities do not fit into the word ‘whoever’ employed in both sections 499 and 500 of IPC and therefore, the proceedings of the kind are not maintainable.
The court, however, said that the truth remains that, unlike private individuals, politicians and political parties consciously expose themselves to scrutiny by the public at large and therefore, they have to display a greater degree of tolerance.
That being said, their image and reputation have a bearing on the electoral process and its product, and cannot be disputed. Disreputing them or damaging their public image would not augur well to the system.
A vibrant democracy like ours warrants reasonable protection of the reputation of political parties and elected representatives of the people.
Therefore, the tort or offence of defamation cannot be viewed leniently merely because the punishment prescribed for the offence is not stringent.
Excluding political parties from the purview of Sections 499 and 500 would deleteriously mask this perspective, the court said while noting that the observations made here are confined to the disposal of this case