'Peaceful Protests By Consumers Not Defamation' : Supreme Court Quashes Builder's Criminal Complaint Against Homebuyers

Noting that peaceful protest and consumer grievance expression are protected free speech, the Supreme Court today (April 17) quashed criminal defamation proceedings against homebuyers for displaying a non-abusive banner outside the developer's building complaining about its work quality.

The Court said that peaceful protests by consumers, ventilating their grievances against service providers in temperate language, cannot be criminalised.

"A right to protest peacefully without falling foul of the law is a corresponding right, which the consumers ought to possess just as the seller enjoys his right to commercial speech. Any attempt to portray them as criminal offences, when the necessary ingredients are not made out, would be a clear abuse of process and should be nipped in the bud," observed the bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh.

“At the very outset, what strikes us is that there is no foul or intemperate language employed against the respondent(developer)…There is no reference to any expression like fraud, cheating, misappropriation, etc. In mild and temperate language, certain issues which the appellant perceived as their grievances have been aired.”, the bench noted.

“We find that the manner of protest resorted to by the appellant was peaceful and orderly and without any manner of using offensive or abusive language.”, the Court added.

The case stems from a dispute arising out of a builder-buyer relationship, where the Appellants, homebuyers, have displayed the banner outside the building constructed by the Respondent-Builder, expressing their concerns and grievances about the quality of construction in mild and temperate language.

The banners contained the following words :

"WE PROTEST AGAINST THE BUILDER A SURTI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.”

FOR

 NOT FORMING THE SOCIETY EVEN AFTER 18 MONTHS BROKEN PODIUM  NOT GIVING SOCIETY ACCOUNTS  NOT CO-OPERATING WITH THE RESIDENTS SHABBY GARDEN  NOT ATTENDING TO BUILDERS' DEFECTS  NOT SORTING WATER ISSUE IGNORING GRIEVANCES  POOR LIFT MAINTENANCE  LEAKAGE PROBLEM NON-CO-OPERATION  PLUMBING ISSUES  DIRTY/BOUNCY APPROACH ROAD

WE PROTEST FOR OUR RIGHTS”

The Respondent-developer filed a complaint under Section 500 IPC for the Appellant's act of erecting banners, which allegedly contained false and damaging statements about the developer's work.

The Magistrate initiated proceedings against the petitioners, and their revision was rejected by the Sessions Court, leading them to file a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC, which the High Court subsequently dismissed.

Following this, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.

Issue

The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether displaying the banner constituted criminal defamation under Section 499 IPC or was protected under the Ninth Exception (good faith/public interest) and Articles 19(1)(a), (b), & (c) (free speech, assembly, association).

Decision

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Viswanathan held that peaceful protest and expression of consumer grievances fall within legitimate free speech.

Moreover, given the business nature of the parties' relationship, which naturally involves mutual obligations and potential disputes, and the absence of any foul or intemperate language, the appellants' peaceful protest could not be treated as criminal defamation, the court said.

“Have the appellants exceeded their privilege in erecting the banner? We do not think so. As set out earlier, all that the banner depicts is what they thought were their grievances against the respondent with whom they had a business relationship. The banner sets out one of the issues was ignoring grievances, implying thereby that there have been running issues between the two, something which is bound to occur in a builder-buyer relationship.”, the court said.

“We have already found that the appellants could not have said anything less in the poster banner as they believed that this was their rightful and legitimate interest to highlight their grievances, which they contend were ignored earlier..”, the court added.

Also, the Court said that the banner did not exceed the bounds of the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC, which protects expressions made in good faith for the protection of one's interest or public good. The Court also noted that the test for the 9th exception is not "truth" but "good faith."

"All that is required is the imputation is made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it or of any other person. The contrast with the 1st exception would show how while truth is an essential ingredient of first exception, it is not so of the 9th exception."

Protest did not cross limits

“It could not be said that the appellants crossed the Lakshman Rekha and transgressed into the offending zone. Their case only falls within the sweep, scope and habit of exception 9 to section 499. The peaceful protest is protected by Articles 19 1(a), (b) and (c) of the constitution.”, the court noted.

Reference was made to the judgment in M/S Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik Gmbh V. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya & Anr which held that the Magistrate can consider the applicability of the exceptions to Section 499 IPC at the stage of issuing process.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

Case Title: SHAHED KAMAL & ORS. VERSUS M/S. A. SURTI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 433

Click here to read the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sureshan P., AOR Mr. Ajay Panicker, Adv. Mr. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Ms. Lavnya Panicker, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Sangra, Adv. Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Syed Kamran Ali, Adv. Mr. Arjun Varma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sagar, Adv. Mrs. V. D. Khanna, AOR Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR