A famous nrews magazine had conducted a survey on the premarital sex in India. The magazine gathered and published the views expressed by several individuals from different segments of society. X a top rank heroine expressed her personal opinion wherein she had noted the increasing incidence of prematital sex and called for the societal acceptance. X advised the girls should take adequate precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of venereal diseases. The survey reports including the statement of X got published in several newspapers. Several petitions were filed against A for making such defamatory remarks. The High Court convicted X and X filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. Decide.
1. Whether the remarks of X amount to defamation? NO
2. Whether conviction given by Trial Court and High Court valid? NO
3. Whether the appeal preferred by X is maintainable? YES
4. Whether X is liable for defamation? NO
Defamation: Section 499 of the Code preovides that whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputations concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Defamation causes imputation to the reputation. Imputation is an injury and reputation is the opinion of others about a person. Law protects the person's reputation as it gives protection to life and property. Section 499 provides that whoever, by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
S. K hushboo Vs. Kanniammal and Another, (2010) 5 SCC 600, the Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court's judgment directing the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, to conduct a joint trial of the 23 defamation complaints filed in various places in Tamil Nadu for her alleged remarks on premarital sex.
A Bench of Chief Justic K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices Deepak Verma and B.S. Chauhan allowed Ms. Kushboo's appeal against the 30/04/2008 judgement. The judgment had ordered consolidation of all cases for a joint trial and disposal of the complaints filed by Ms. Kanniammal and others in six months. Ms. Kushboo said that in a survey conducted by India Today in September 2005 on 'premarital Sex,' she expressed her views on the need for teaching the younger generation sexology either in educational institutions or by parents.
However, she said, certain groups having political affiliation, in view of a byelection in October/November 2005, started a vilification campaign against her solely for achieving political mileage an publicity. Objecting to her statement in the magazine, 23 complaints were filed against her solely for achieving political mileage and publicity. Objecting to her statement in the magazine, 23 complaints were filed against her under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( criminal defamation) in various places to harass and victimise her. Ms. Kushboo argued that the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression could not be impinged upon by vested interests which had unleashed a compaign upon by vested interests which had unleashed a campaign of systematic complaints. The Supreme Court accepted her contentions and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against her.
In the instant problem, the remarks of X do not amount to defamation. The convictions given by the Trial Court and the High Court are not valid. The appeal preferred by X is maintainable. X is not liable for defamation because dissemination of news and views for popular consumption is permissible under our consitutional scheme. The different views are allowed to be expressed by the proponents and opponents. A culture of responsible reading is to be inculcated amongst the prudent readers. Morality and criminality are far from being coextensive. An expression of opinion in favour of nondogmatic and nonconventional morality has to be tolerated as the same cannot be ground to penalise the author.
0 Comments: