Speaking On Harmful Effects Of Excessive Pesticide Use In Public Interest Not Defamation: Bombay High Court Quashes Cases Against Doctors
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (August 18) quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against two doctors, way back in 2015 under charges of criminal defamation for speaking in Aamir Khan's 'Satyamev Jayate' show, about toxic food poison and also about fruits and vegetables having abnormally high levels of pesticide residues thereby causing “folic acid” deficiency in pregnant...
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (August 18) quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against two doctors, way back in 2015 under charges of criminal defamation for speaking in Aamir Khan's 'Satyamev Jayate' show, about toxic food poison and also about fruits and vegetables having abnormally high levels of pesticide residues thereby causing “folic acid” deficiency in pregnant mothers which leads to causing of skull deformities in new born babies and also contaminating the mother's milk.
Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav quashed the FIR lodged against Dr Rashmi Sanghi and Dr Gopal Kabra, who participated in the program which was aired in June 2012, wherein Sanghi spoke for 40 seconds and Kabra for 3 to 4 minutes. They both were invited by makers of Satyamev Jayate to answer the queries put up by Khan in the show.
While Sanghi spoke about the contaminated breast milk due to excessive use of insecticides and pesticides in farms, Kabra spoke about such use of chemicals in farms leading to deformities in newborn babies.
The complaint in the cases was filed by Crop Care Federation of India Limited (CCFIL), which claimed to be 'defamed' as its members were manufacturers and marketers of insecticides and pesticides. They claimed that the two doctors, defamed all the manufactures of such insecticides and pesticides which were used in farming.
However, the bench noted that there were also some other public figures and experts in the program, who too spoke about alternative methods of farming such as organic farming, regulation of pesticides and insecticides etc.
The judge also perused the transcripts of the show and opined that the two doctors only made the statements in the show to spread awareness about grossly visible and mostly fatal malformation and high incidence of defects noticed through studies which were conducted.
"In my opinion, the entire case filed by the Complainant virtually turns on its heads in view of the fact that admittedly both Applicants have not made any mention whether direct or indirect about the use of any particular pesticide or insecticide as being teratogenic or being responsible for any birth defects or deformities, neither have they mentioned or taken the name of any manufacturer or producer of insecticides or pesticides in a negative or defamatory manner which would amount to casting insinuation or imputation on any of the members of the Complainant/ NGO/ Organization or for that matter any person / manufacturer concerning the insecticide / pesticide industry," Justice Jadhav said.
In fact, the judge, said that the statements made were generic and not specific without imputing any aspersion altogether rather it both the Applicants, the judge noted, are research scholars and the answers given by them when seen and considered are given in general on the basis of contemporaneous studies and analysis carried out by they themselves.
"On overall consideration of the facts in the present case it is seen that the discussion on the TV show program was to spread awareness about the side effects and ill effects of excessive use of pesticides and insecticides or other teratogenic material on human health and its impact on environment and ecology and to discuss and deliberate on alternate methods of farming which are less harmful. I do not find a singular intentional or malicious or false statement made by the Applicants while answering the questions so as to indict either a particular pesticides or insecticides and/or the manufacturers and marketers of pesticide and insecticide or concerning any member of the Complainant," the judge opined.
Further, the judge noted that the allegations made in the complaint have been taken cognisance of by the Magistrate as if they are directed against a particular pesticide or insecticide or their manufacturer and / or marketer. However once that is absent the essential ingredients of Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 to constitute the offense of defamation cannot disclose satisfaction of the said ingredients at all, the court said.
"The statements made by both Applicants are substantiated by their own research papers and well documented reports of DST and Voluntary Health Association of India. It is seen that there is no attempt whatsoever made in the answers given by both Applicants to blame or tarnish the reputation of any manufacturer or marketer of insecticide and / or pesticide. What is highlighted in the answers given is only that the excessive use of pesticide and its harmful effects and such opinion is in my opinion in the public interest. Hence, in that view of the matter it cannot and does not amount to defamation at all," the bench held.
With these observations, the bench quashed and set aside the FIR lodged against both the doctors.
Appearance:
Senior Advocate Ashok Mundargi along with Advocates Maulik Nanavati and Paavani Chadha appeared for the Applicants.
Advocate Brijesh Shukla represented the Complainant.
Additional Public Prosecutor Sukanta Karmakar represented the State.
Case Title: Dr Rashmi Sanghi vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 1082 of 2018)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 388