Minister/Public Servant Can File Private Complaint Alleging Defamation; Need Not Follow Special Procedure U/Sec 199 (2) & (4) CrPC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a minister or public servant (a person covered by Section 199(2)) can file a private complaint alleging defamation and need not follow the special procedure prescribed by Section 199(2) & (4) CrPC."The special procedure is in addition to and not in derogation of the right that a public servant always has as an individual. He never lost his right merely because he became a public servant and merely because the allegations related to official discharge of his duties", the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian said.Section 199 CrPCSection 199 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of defamation except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.Section 199(2) provides a special procedure when the offence of defamation is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union territory, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions. In such a situtation, a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor. Section 199(4) further provides that such complaint can be made by the Public Prosecutor only with the previous sanction— (a) of the State Government, in the case of a person who is or has been the Governor of that State or a Minister of that Government; (b) of the State Government, in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State; (c) of the Central Government, in any other case.BackgroundIn this case, Manish Sisodia, a minister in Delhi Government, filed a complaint before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, against Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Vijender Gupta and others alleging commission of the offences under Sections 499 and 500 read with Sections 34 and 35 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused challenged the order of summoning before the High Court of Delhi. As the High Court dismissed these petitions, the accused approached the Apex Court in appeal.Before the Apex Court, the only contention raised by Manoj Tiwari was that the Court ought not to have entertained a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C especially from a person covered by Section 199(2) of the Code, without following the procedure prescribed in subsection (4) of Section 199. In response, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi contended that what is prescribed by Section 199(2) of the Code is a special procedure, which does not exclude the general procedure prescribed under Section 199(6) and that the right of a public servant, as an individual, to prosecute a person for defamation, is guaranteed by Section 199(6), to which the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 199 have no application.The bench in its judgment discusses the legislative history of these provisions. Referring to these provisions, the court observed:To say that the provisions of subsection (6) of Section 199 can be invoked by the individual public servant, only in cases where the State Government does not go to his rescue, could violate the plain language of subsection (6). Subsection (6) of Section 199 begins with the words "nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed". Subsection (6) does not contain any conditions subject to which the right thereunder can be exercised. The nonobstante clause in subsection (2) of Section 199 will also not go to the rescue of the appellants, as the said clause also stands eclipsed by the words "nothing in this section" appearing in subsection (6). The word "nothing" appearing in subsection (6) will include the nonobstante clause in subsection (1) also.The court observed that the right of an individual is saved, under subsection (6), even if he falls under the category of persons mentioned in subsection (2). "The long history of the evolution of the legislation relating to prosecution for the offence of defamation of public servants shows that the special procedure introduced in 1955 and finetuned in 1964 and overhauled in 1973 was in addition to and not in derogation of the right that a public servant always had as an individual. He never lost his right merely because he became a public servant and merely because the allegations related to official discharge of his duties. Subsection (6) of Section 199 which is a reproduction of what was recommended in the 41st Report of the Law Commission to be made subsection (13) of Section 198B, 36 cannot...

Minister/Public Servant Can File Private Complaint Alleging Defamation; Need Not Follow Special Procedure U/Sec 199 (2) & (4) CrPC : Supreme Court

Ashok KM

Tags