BENGALURU : Rejecting BJP’s contention 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 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, dismissing the petition filed by BJP, represented by its then president Nalin Kumar Kateel. He had questioned the defamatory case filed by Congress MLA Rizwan Arshad.
BJP had 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 a private complaint filed by Rizwan. He had pointed to alleged defamatory tweets by BJP against him in 2019, under Section 499 read with Section 500 of IPC. BJP had alleged that Rizwan was behind a racket fabricating fake voter ID cards. The Magistrate took cognisance of the offence and issued summons to BJP.
BJP contended that it is a political party and not a ‘person’. It being only a ‘society’ or ‘association of persons’, such entities do not fit into the word ‘whoever’ employed in both Sections and the proceedings are not maintainable.
But the court said that unlike private individuals, politicians and political parties consciously expose themselves to close scrutiny by the public and they have to display a greater degree of tolerance. 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. The tort or offence of defamation cannot be viewed leniently merely because the punishment prescribed for the offence is not stringent.